U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

84–255 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–819

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 139 S. 2519

S. 1609 S. 2576

S. 1925 H.R. 1814

S. 2196 H.R. 3928

S. 2388

JUNE 20, 2002

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

JOHN WATTS, Counsel

NANCIE AMES, Bevinetto Fellow

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 1

Barrett, Brenda, National Coordinator for Heritage Areas, National Park

Service, Department of the Interior ................................................................... 15

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................ 13

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 6

Clish, Heather, Director of Trails and Riverway Stewardship, Appalachian

Mountain Club, Boston, MA ................................................................................ 36

Cordova, Kathryn M., Chair, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area

Steering Committee, El Prado, NM ....................................................................

Dodd, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from Connecticut ..................................... 7

Esplin, Fred C., Vice President for University Relations, University of Utah,

Salt Lake City, UT ............................................................................................... 32

Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina .............................. 2

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ........................... 3

Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ...................................... 4

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from Connecticut .................................... 10

Martin, Wilson G., Acting Director, Division of State History, State Historic

Preservation Officer, Salt Lake City, UT ........................................................... 34

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 12

Villa, Jose ́ D., Vice Chairperson, Interim Board of Directors, Northern Rio

Grande National Heritage Area, Espanola, NM ................................................

Whitney, Mary, Former Mayor, City of Fitchburg, Fitchburg, MA, on behalf

of Freedom’s Way Heritage Association ............................................................. 39

APPENDIXES

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 49

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in Room

366, Dirksen Senator Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator AKAKA. The hearing will come to order. Good afternoon

everyone, especially Senator Dodd. Good afternoon. I would like to

welcome the witnesses and thank them for their testimony, and I

also want to thank all of you in the audience for being here with

us today and for your interest in the hearing. The purpose of the

hearing this afternoon before the Subcommittee on National Parks

is to receive testimony on nine bills pending before the subcommittee. The bills that we will consider today are S. 139 and H.R. 3928,

to assist in the preservation of archaeological, paleontological and

other artifacts through construction of a new facility for the University of Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, Utah;

S. 1609 and H.R. 1814, to amend the National Trail System Act to

designate the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending

through Western Massachusetts and Central Connecticut for study

for potential addition to the National Trail System; S. 1925, to establish the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area in the States of

Massachusetts and New Hampshire; S. 2196, to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area in the State of Utah; S.

2388, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study certain sites

in the Historic District of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the

Reconstruction Era; S. 2519, to direct the Secretary of the Interior

to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System; and S. 2576, to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the

State of New Mexico.

These bills would protect areas constituting valuable additions to

our National Park System. I believe most of the bills on today’s

agenda are noncontroversial, although there are some concerns

about the Utah Museum proposal which would authorize limited

National Park Service funds to assist a State Museum of Natural

History that is not part of any federally managed site or facility.

2

I look forward to working with the sponsors of the bills and Senator Thomas as we consider these bills.

At this time, I would like to call on Senator Bingaman for any

statement he may have.

[The prepared statements of Senators Hollings, Kennedy, and

Kerry follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

METACOMET-MONADNOCK-MATTABESETT TRAIL STUDY ACT OF 2001

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Chairman and Ranking Member

for recognizing the significance of this legislation and hosting this hearing today.

This legislation authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study

on the establishment of a Reconstruction Era unit of the Park Service in the Beaufort region of South Carolina.

The Reconstruction Era is recognized as a painful, divisive and controversial period in our nation’s history—particularly in the South. Perhaps this is why the Congress and the National Park Service have avoided focusing on the preservation or

interpretation of historic sites related to the Reconstruction Period and African

American history from that period. However, I see things quite differently. I see Reconstruction as the foundation of unification—not only the unification of North and

South, but more significantly, the unification of black and white—and the vision for

equality, unity and hope. The nationally significant events that turned the tide for

the Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War began in the capture of the Beaufort Lowcountry. Likewise, the events of the Port Royal experiment and establishment of the Penn Center turned the tide of emancipation, freedom, and civil rights.

Until we acknowledge our history, our heritage, our mistakes and our successes. We

will never overcome the racial divide that has continued to plague the unity of this

nation.

As a young legislator, I had the good fortunate to work with a man named Esau

Jenkins, an African American from the Sea Islands. I can see him right now in my

office when I was a young lawyer. Esau never had a formal education. He taught

himself and taught himself to speak Greek of all things. Not only was he an inspiration of self-help and innovation to so many in his community, he was a leader with

a vision for equality.

He once said to me, ‘‘You’ve got to understand, education is our only chance.’’

I said, ‘‘What do you mean, Esau?’’

He said, ‘‘Ignorance Hollings. Ignorance is the greatest prison there is.’’

And he said, ‘‘My people have been imprisoned.’’

Those words fascinated me because they seemed to transcend time, culture and

race, and they have resonated in my mind on many occasions. Those words have

motivated me throughout my life in public service and continue to motivate me

today. That is why I am here before you to testify on behalf of the history of Reconstruction and the foundations of freedom that began on St. Helena Island in Beaufort, South Carolina.

Plantation owners systematically deprived their slaves of literacy and education.

As my friend Esau so eloquently pleaded, not only were slaves imprisoned by their

owners, they were imprisoned by ignorance. When tutors came to teach the little

white children, the black children were never able to participate because the way

to make for a good slave was to make sure their minds were never unsettled, their

curiosity was never inflamed.

The abolitionists knew that without education, emancipation would be a false

promise to black Americans. Likewise, newly freed slaves in the 1860s saw a clear

link between education and freedom. The Sea Islands of Beaufort, South Carolina

is where it all began. The first reading of the Emancipation Proclamation was at

Old Fort Plantation. The Beaufort Arsenal was where freedmen voted for the first

time. Mitchellville on Hilton Head Island was the first Freedman’s Village. And,

most notably, the Penn Center on St. Helena Island was the first school for freedmen.

Quaker missionaries came to Beaufort in the wake of the Union Army’s capture

of the Lowcountry in South Carolina in 1862. They came to a strange land, to a

downtrodden people, with a mission of education and advancement. The Penn Center was at the heart of the Port Royal Experiment—the famous ‘‘proving ground for

freedom.’’ That experiment succeeded. Penn Center’s work with the 10,000 FreedVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
3

men of this area became a model—a model for similar schools elsewhere, and a

model that Abraham Lincoln looked to in shaping his Reconstruction policies.

Penn Center has always been a jewel in the crown of South Carolina’s cultural

life. But, heretofore, it has been one of South Carolina’s best-kept secrets. I can

think of no better place to start our exploration into our Reconstruction heritage

than at the Penn Center. From 1862 to this day, the Penn Center’s great gift—its

great message—to African Americans is that education matters, education can

transform. By educating the nation on the foundations of freedom and civil rights

during Reconstruction, we will also help future generations understand our cultural

diversity, overcome the ignorance of racism and make another significant stride toward national unity.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer my great thanks for your willingness to hold today’s

hearing on S. 1925, the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area Act, which I believe

is critically important to protecting rich and unique aspects of our nation’s history.

The proposed Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area before the committee today

covers a total of 889 square miles in 42 communities—36 of which are in Massachusetts and 6 of which are in the State of New Hampshire. Included within the proposed boundaries are dozens of important American sites, including: Walden Pond

State Reservation; Minute Man National Historical Park; Wachusett Mountain

State Reservation; and the historic Shaker Villages.

The communities within Freedom’s Way have played host to a number of historic

events—dating back before the Battles of Lexington and Concord—that shaped the

development of this country and its democratic form of government. This region can

also rightly be called the birthplace of the American conservation movement because

it was here that Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau refined their philosophies through their writing.

But the future of this region is uncertain. Rapid development and encroaching

suburbanization are bearing down on these wonderful communities and may well

permanently destroy their links to a rich and vibrant history. In order to prevent

a future in which 300 years of American history is overrun by mindless low-density

development, we need to provide these communities with the tools necessary to

practice smart growth and protect important properties.

Fortunately, a committee group of citizens called the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association has formed to advocate on behalf of a strong, balanced future for the region. The Freedom’s Way Heritage Association has issued a clarion call, Mr. Chairman, and they are they are the reason we are here today.

But they can’t do it all on their own. In order to convince the public that this region is a special place where development deserves thoughtful consideration, they

need federal help. They need the prestige that comes with the federal heritage area

designation, they need the technical assistance of the professionals at the National

Park Service, and they need the resources to protect individual properties that are

in danger of deterioration, neglect, and demolition.

Luckily, we have proof that this model can work in the Northeast. Just 30 miles

to the South, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is proving beyond a doubt that this kind of partnership can flourish. Begun

just 15 years ago, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor has become a phenomenal success in leveraging limited federal resources

to provide resource protection and cultural enrichment and to create a framework

in which local leaders can come together and accomplish common goals.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that because of the level of interest expressed in the

Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area, this heritage area has a strong chance of

one day rivaling the great success of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley

Heritage Corridor.

I would like to thank the committee for holding this hearing and I hope we will

have an opportunity to pass S. 1925 this year. I would be remiss if I concluded without thanking the National Park Service for its professionalism and ingenuity. It is

always a joy to work with them in Massachusetts and I hope we will soon be able

to work together on the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area.

4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MASSACHUSETTS

METACOMET-MONADNOCK-MATTABESETT TRAIL STUDY ACT OF 2001, S. 1609

I want to thank Senators Akaka and Thomas for holding today’s hearing, and I

commend Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski for the Committee’s work in land management and conservation. And I also thank Senators Kennedy, Lieberman and Dodd, who are cosponsors of S. 1609. I hope that today’s hearing will provide the Committee the information it needs to act favorably on S. 1609,

which will authorize the study of the Metacomet, Monadnock and Mattabesett trails

for inclusion in the National Trails System.

The National Trails System was created in 1968 to ‘‘provide for maximum outdoor

recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such

trails may pass.’’ The Metacomet-Monadnock Mattabesett trail system seems almost

perfectly qualified for such a program, and it certainly deserves the careful consideration that S. 1609 would provide.

Running north to south, the trail begins at the Massachusetts-New Hampshire

border just northeast of Greenfield, Massachusetts, and runs south just east of

Northampton and west of Springfield when it reaches Connecticut. Once in Connecticut, the trail runs south through West Hartford, New Britain and to Long Island Sound.

Its length stretches more than 100 miles, and along that distance are numerous

opportunities for recreation for the citizens of Massachusetts and Connecticut and

visitors from around New England or elsewhere. People enjoy bicycling, cross-country skiing, day hiking, jogging, bird watching, camping and long distance backpacking-and they enjoy just being outside taking in the beauty of the New England landscape.

Along the trail one can find natural riches: stunning vistas from key ridges, summits and traprock ledges; streams, waterfalls, marshes, wetlands, lakes, and ponds;

and forests, fields and meadows. And if you’re lucky, you can spot wildlife, wild

flowers in the spring and summer, and beautiful foliage in the fall months as oaks

and sugar maples turn color.

And there are pieces of New England’s history scattered along the trail: forgotten

cemeteries, former stagecoach routes, caves once inhabited by Native American tribal councils, abandoned quarries, old cellar holes and meandering rock walls. Some

of the sites remind us of our past trials: a burial site holding the remains of smallpox victims is marked only by a circle of large stones, and farther along the trail

is ‘‘Hospital Rock’’ bearing the 1792 inscriptions of 66 smallpox victims. The region’s

turn to industry can be found in old mills and the remnants of charcoal mounds

built by 19th century colliers who supplied the iron industry. The mark of the Civilian Conservation Corps can be seen in the bridges, dams, ponds and lookout towers

constructed in the 1930s.

These qualities explain why the local support for S. 1609 is nearly unanimous and

so very strong. I would like to share a few comments from organizations in Massachusetts and Connecticut that support this legislation. Peter Westover, the Conservation Director for the Town of Amherst, wrote to express strong support for the

trail. He is confident that there will be widespread support among trail managers

and trail users throughout the region. Bob Durand, the Massachusetts Secretary of

Environmental Affairs, wrote that the Metacomet-Monadnock portion of the trail is

an important recreational, scenic, and historic resource that could be significantly

enhanced by this project. The Massachusetts director of the Nature Conservancy,

Wayne Klockner, expressed his strong support for the trail, writing that he supports

the benefits that designation can bring to a fragile area and that he looks forward

to increased land protection, funding and technical expertise. From Connecticut,

Leslie Kane, Chairman of the Guilford Land Acquisition Committee, supports the

trail because it will preserve Connecticut’s natural heritage for all people to enjoy.

These comments represent only a handful of the letters of support that I have received.

I am confident that the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system will provide recreational opportunities for all visitors and it certainly encompasses an area

of great scenic, historic, natural and cultural quality. We hope to maximize its recreational potential and conserve its nationally significant qualities. Throughout New

England just like so many places in the country, we face pressures from land development. We are balancing our need for more homes, businesses, roads, power infrastructure and water with our desire to preserve the environmental and historical

legacy we have inherited. The recognition and distinction that come with being desVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
5

ignated as part of the national trails system will help the communities of the

Metacomet, Monadnock and Mattabesett trails preserve the legacy they have inherited and hope to share with others.

I understand that the Park Service has asked for technical amendments to S.

1609. While I have not seen the text of those changes, I support them as they’ve

been described by the Service and would ask that the Committee support them as

well. I thank the Committee, especially Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member

Thomas, for today’s hearing and for any assistance the Committee can provide.

Thank you.

FREEDOM’S WAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT, S. 1925

I want to thank Senators Akaka and Thomas for holding today’s hearing, and I

thank Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski for the Committee’s

work in land management and conservation. And I also thank Senators Kennedy

and Gregg who are cosponsors of S. 1925. I hope that today’s hearing will provide

the Committee the information it needs to act favorably on S. 1925, which will designate the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area.

To pass muster as a National Heritage Area, the candidate region must represent

an important theme in American history; reflect traditions, customs, beliefs and folk

life that are a valuable part of American history; provide opportunities to conserve

natural, cultural, historic and scenic qualities; be an example of a natural or cultural region or process; have local support, public involvement and potential for

partnership; and-have consistent economic activity. I believe that the 36 Massachusetts and 6 New Hampshire towns that have joined together in the proposed Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area have all these characteristics and more.

The history of the region, and its importance to our nation, is nearly unparalleled.

These communities have been called the Landscape of American Democracy, and

that description is not an exaggeration by any means. More than 100 years before

the American Revolution many of these cities and towns were inventing their own

system of self-governance, one that embraced democracy, property rights, religious

freedoms and equality. In other words, the same individual rights we cherish so passionately today.

When the American Revolution started, the men of these cities and towns organized themselves into a militia and stood against the British regulars at Lexington

and Concord. The battle galvanized the colonies in the battle for independence. And

when the women of these towns were called upon, they took up the cause just as

forcefully. It was Prudence Wright and Lt. Sarah Shattuck who lead a women’s

troop to capture a Tory spy in Pepperell. It was in Concord that one of the most

famous lines in American history was spoken by Captain John Parker, when he

called to his militia, ‘‘Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they

mean to have a war, let it begin here.’’

Various religions grew up throughout the region. The Shakers settled in Harvard,

Ayer and Shirley. The Millerites in Groton. Transcendentalist thinkers gathered in

Harvard, Fruitlands and Concord. The St. Benedict’s Abbey of Harvard, a community of devout Jesuits, is still strong today Each of these faiths has impacted the

region and the nation’s in its own way.

Political and social movements flourished. Thinkers that have shaped our political

foundation and our history wrote and taught in the towns of the proposed Freedom’s

Way National Heritage Area. They include Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau and others. They nurtured movements for abolition, women’s suffrage, equality and conservation.

Abolitionist Societies flourished, and within these towns are several stops on the

Underground Railroad. Runaway slaves fleeing north for freedom hid in basements,

caves and passageways in Fitchburg, Princeton and other towns.

One can see today how many of these towns were planned and developed hundreds of years ago. Homes, churches, inns, taverns, government buildings and markets are clustered around the town common. Once land for grazing animals, the

commons are now shared space for communities to come together for recreation and

celebration. In other towns, especially along the rivers, you can see the birth of industry in old mills. The shift from agrarian economies to industrial economies was

started when water power forged metal and drove machines. You can see that transition in buildings that stand today.

The natural and scenic values of the region are extraordinary. In the eastern region the suburban land outside Boston is broken with the Great Meadows National

Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Minuteman National Historical

Park and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The central region is a more

rural landscape, with orchards, farmlands and river ways, and the Nashua River

6

Greenway, Bolton Flats Wildlife Management Area and the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. In the western region the hills begin to rise with the Mt. Wachusett

State Reservation, Mt. Watatic and state forests.

With all of these historic, cultural and natural qualities it easy to understand why

the local support for a national heritage area designation is strong. The 42 cities

and towns of the region have endorsed the effort. Massachusetts and New Hampshire have endorsed this proposal. Massachusetts paid for the feasibility study and

has set aside budget authority of $250,000 should the federal government act favorably on S. 1925. The Freedom’s Way Heritage Association is a vibrant organization,

with strong local support, creative thinkers and exactly the kind of group needed

to make the potential benefits in a national heritage area designation a reality.

I strongly believe that the Freedom’s Way region meets the standard called for

to become a National Heritage Area. I hope that the committee will act favorable

on S. 1925 so that this region can enjoy the distinction and benefits that come with

designation. I understand that the Park Service has suggested some technical

amendments to S. 1925. While I’ve not seen the text of these amendments, I support

them as they’ve been generally described by the Service. I thank the Committee for

its time and effort in this matter, and I am grateful for any assistance it can provide

in enacting this legislation.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having

this hearing. I know you have several bills you are going to take

testimony on. I know we have a couple of colleagues here with particular interest in bills affecting the State of Connecticut, I assume.

Senator LIEBERMAN. We are interested in some locations in New

Mexico.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. I knew they were here to also support the bill

I am interested in. The bill that I wanted to particularly flag for

the chairman and Senator Thomas is S. 2576, which you just referred to. This is to designate the Northern Rio Grande National

Heritage Area in North Central New Mexico. We have two very

distinguished New Mexico residents here to testify on behalf of this

bill, Kathy Cordova, who is the chair of the Northern Rio Grande

National Heritage Area Steering Committee, and Jose Villa, who is

the vice chair. Mr. Villa is also here representing the Espanola

mayor, Richard Usero.

This is a bill that has been developed over a period of several

years by the Northern Rio Grande Heritage Area Steering Committee, working cooperatively with the various governmental organizations and the North Central part of our State, working also with

the Indian Tribes and pueblos in that part of our State.

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from the eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council in support of this, which I would like to include in the record.

Senator AKAKA. Without objection, it will be included in the

record.

The CHAIRMAN. We also have a statement from the Governors of

Taos Pueblo, Picuris Pueblo, Nambe Pueblo, and San Juan Pueblo

which I would like to include in the record in support of this legislation.

Senator AKAKA. They will be included.

The CHAIRMAN. I do think this is an important initiative. It is

one that does not in any way authorize Federal land acquisition or

grant the Federal Government or any entity any additional manVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
7

agement authority over any land covered by this heritage area. It

is very similar to the other 23 established heritage areas in that

it would establish a nonprofit corporation which would include representatives of the affected local communities and pueblos and

other interested citizens.

I appreciate, again, you holding the hearing on this bill. I think

it is an important piece of legislation. I hope we can move ahead

with it in this Congress. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony on S.

2576.

I want to remind my colleagues that your entire statement will

be included in the record, and so feel free to summarize as you see

fit.

May I call on Senator Dodd for your testimony?

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CONNECTICUT

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and

I will submit a formal statement in the record. I am pleased to be

joined at the table here by my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in

support of S. 2519, the Coltsville Study Act, to also inform you that

a companion piece of legislation has been introduced in the other

body by Representative John Larson of Hartford, along with cosponsors of the other members of the Connecticut delegation, that

would establish this park in Coltsville in the Greater Hartford

Area for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

Mr. Chairman, we are a small State. In fact, when one thinks

of national parks, Connecticut does not come to mind immediately.

The great States of the far West, the State of the presiding chairman, certainly. In fact, Connecticut is hardly larger than some of

our national parks. I think it is only a bit larger than Yellowstone

National Park, and but for the efforts of my colleague to my left

here, we would not have any at all. I was pleased to join and support him when he was the lead person and made the effort in the

Wier Farm National Historic Park, some 60 acres in Connecticut,

which has been a wonderful addition to our small State, but we

think there are places in Connecticut that are worthy of inclusion

in the National Park Service System, that size should not be the

only criteria, or natural beauty, despite the fact that we have many

attractive places of natural significance in our State.

We think that what we have suggested to you here, by the inclusion of the Coltsville Sheldon Charter Oak Neighborhood in Hartford, Connecticut, deserves unique and special recognition for the

reasons that I will quickly outline for you here. You all know the

name of Samuel Colt, Colt firearms. Certainly, while I would mention Western States, if you ask most people they probably would

assume that Sam Colt was from somewhere out West, given the

taming of the West, as it is often referred to by the Colt weapons,

but Samuel Colt built his firearm company and could have built it

in a number of different places, but chose Hartford, Connecticut as

the place to locate his firearms factory in the 19th century. It is

a landmark facility.

8

If you have driven through Hartford, Connecticut, heading north

into Springfield, Massachusetts, you go right by the Colt firearms

factory and the great onion dome with the Colt symbol that sits

atop that onion dome, actually given by one of the czars to Samuel

Colt because of a contract relationship he had with the empire of

Russia going back into the 19th century, but that building stands

as much of a landmark as the Traveler’s Tower does in the State

of Connecticut.

Sam Colt made Hartford the center of his precision manufacturing effort, and it became in many ways the home of precision manufacturing, and really the spark plug of the industrial revolution,

and while Americans may associate, as I said, the name Sam Colt

with firearms, the Colt legacy goes far beyond that. Sam Colt was

a key figure in the industrial revolution, contributing to the development of waterproof ammunition, underwater mines, the telegraph and the like. He was also the first American manufacturer

to open a plant overseas. He set standards for a Nation that fast

became known for its technological innovations, and it all began in

this one site in Coltsville, Connecticut. It is also a little-known fact

that after Sam Colt’s death in 1862, when he was in his early forties, that his wife Elizabeth Jarvis Colt, took over and for almost

a half-century she was one of the top chief executive officers in the

world. She was the leading manufacturer of the Colt firearms Company, did not have the right to vote, Mr. Chairman, but she was

one of the great industrialists in the world. In fact, today the Colt

Armory remains a beacon in the Hartford skyline, as I mentioned

Coltsville still boasts the grand Victorian home, Armsmeer, which

is the home of Sam and Elizabeth Colt, which has been designated

as a national historic landmark.

Other nearby attractions include the housing where people lived

while they worked in the church, the whole church of the Good

Shepherd which was built by the Colt family, the Colt memorial.

The national park at Coltsville would be the main venue on a tour

of Hartford that could include, of course, as you all know, the

homes of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe, the Museum of

American Political Life, and the riverfront along the Connecticut

River, so it would be a prime destination for anyone taking an extended tour of historic and scenic New England, where the Industrial Revolution played such a critical role.

The national park at Coltsville would include about 260 acres, be

comprised of both public and private space, the centerpiece would

be a museum and an armory celebrating Sam Colt and the growth

of American industry. The museum could also hold the vast collection of Colt firearms that currently rests in the Museum of Connecticut History, as well as other machinery and memorabilia for

the industrial period.

The tourist interest sparked by the site would work in tandem,

we think, with endeavors stimulating business growth such as

Adrian’s Landing, a project that contributes to the continuing economic revival of Connecticut’s capital city. One need only look as

far as Lowell, Massachusetts, to see what a national park could do

for a city.

A former colleague of ours, Paul Tsongas, Paul and I were elected to the House together in 1974, when he represented Lowell, and

9

it became his principal endeavor as a member of Congress, the

House of Representatives, and it carried on during his tenure here

in the Senate, and today Lowell, Massachusetts is really a wonderful example of an urban park, how you can take valued local State

and national resources and contribute significantly to the permanent designation of an important historical contribution to our

country.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware, we all are, of the tremendous budgetary constraints and pressures the National Park Service faces, as

does other organizations and agencies of government, that the administration may be reluctant to designate new parks while we are

still working to reduce the maintenance backlog at existing facilities, but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should not let these

obstacles stand in the way of a project that enjoys bipartisan support from public as well as private citizens.

The leading State-wide newspaper of our State, the HartfordCourant, has been the prime mover in this, and editorializes almost

on a weekly basis about the value of sustaining and contributing,

sustaining the Sam Colt legacy in Connecticut for the Nation.

The Governor of our State, John Roland, is a strong supporter of

this effort as well, along with the mayors and some of the present

tenants and owners of this facility, so Mr. Chairman, we would

strongly urge your inclusion of this project for study. We realize we

have got a lot of work to do to convince the people of the value of

this. We think a study would help us make that case.

It does not make the case finally for us, but it gives us a chance

to present why we think a small State like ours—I have always enjoyed my tenor of almost 24 years of supporting the inclusion of national parks in other States, and will continue to do so, the value

of them. We would like to think that in our small corner of the

world, Mr. Chairman, that we, too, can have some designations

that could contribute to the richness and the legacy of our country,

and so we urge the adoption of legislation that would give us that

opportunity.

And lastly, I just want to lend my support as well to the legislation introduced by John Kerry that would authorize a feasibility

study of the Metacomet Trail which, of course, as you pointed out

already, includes a part of central Connecticut, through Massachusetts. We think that is also a worthwhile project, and we want to

lend our support to that as well, and since my wife is from Utah,

I will also support a museum in Utah. A little bliss back at home

does not hurt at all.

Senator BENNETT. That is much appreciated.

[Laughter.]

Senator DODD. We are waiting to hear how you feel about this

little project in Connecticut.

[Laughter.]

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much, Senator Dodd, for

your testimony. I know you have a busy schedule. You may be excused at any time.

Senator DODD. Thank you, and thank Senator Thomas as well

for me.

Senator AKAKA. Now I would like to call on Senator Lieberman

for your testimony.

10

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CONNECTICUT

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good to be here. I

am here to give basically the same message as my colleague did,

so I would like to ask that a full statement be included in the

record as if I had delivered it and just say a few words. First, I

do want to say, since Senator Dodd and I are close and his wife

is from Utah, that I also support Senator Bennett’s bill.

[Laughter.]

Senator LIEBERMAN. We are very proud that we have the Wier

Farm as a national park site, and it reminds us, and perhaps people around the country, that the national parks, as Senator Dodd

said, are not just for open spaces as such glorious gifts of God to

this country like Yosemite or Grand Canyon, or Grand Teton, but

there are other sites of historic significance that are smaller, that

are in different settings, and that are as much worth preserving for

their beauty and for what they add to our history and our culture.

It happens that the Wier site was a place where some of the

leading painters of the American expressionist movement went at

the turn of the last century, around the turn of the last century,

so it is a wonderful part of our cultural history, and thanks to the

action of Congress it was preserved.

The same is true in a different sense of this Coltsville site, which

is one of the cradles of the Industrial Revolution and deserves protection in very much the same way. Sam Colt was a remarkable

person, born in 1814 in Hartford. When he was just a teenager, he

thought up the idea of a pistol with a revolving cylinder, a concept

that transformed the firearm from a single shot device into a multiple shot device and changed the course of American economic and

security history.

The company that he went on to found was producing 150 weapons a day by 1856, products known for their exceptional quality,

workmanship and design. It happens that Connecticut was the

home, and continues to be the home to a number of firearms manufacturers, a lot of them coming out of this period. Winchester obviously is another one. Marlin and others have followed since then.

We think that this Coltsville site stands for a whole period in our

history at the outset of the Industrial Revolution, and for the spirit

of entrepreneurship and innovation that has created growth in our

country and opportunity for a lot of people.

I do want to report to you that our staffs have been in contact

with the private owners of the properties here who have expressed

to us their willingness and eagerness, in fact, to work with the National Park Service to continue the process, and so I think this is

a real opportunity to begin the study and to make this dream that

a lot of us in Connecticut have a reality, and we think it will be

a dream that will become a source of enrichment for people

throughout the country who come and visit an important part of

our history.

Finally, I just want to say how much I appreciate the committee’s willingness to consider the Metacomet-MonadnockMattabesett Trail Study Act of 2001, which as you have indicated

would extend about 260 miles through Connecticut and Massachusetts and New Hampshire, quite a wonderful site, which would

11

wind past agricultural fields, climb sheer cliff faces, and offer some

magnificent views across Connecticut’s Central Valley.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kindness in hearing us, and

we hope that you will support these two measures. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of commenting on the legislation before you here today. I am testifying to voice my support

for two pieces of legislation that I have cosponsored—S. 2519, the Coltsville Study

Act of 2002, and S. 1609, the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act

of 2001.

First, with regard to the Coltsville Study Act, one of my early actions as a Senator

was to pass legislation creating the Weir Farm National Historic Site Connecticut’s

first national park. It is high time for the second.

There is no more deserving location for this designation than Coltsville, one of the

cradles of the Industrial Revolution. When I think of what a national park means

to me—a beautiful, historically significant place where people can come to find some

measure of peace, solace, and personal enrichment—this site hits the bullseye. It

will connect Connecticut residents and all those who visit it to our noble past, while

reminding them that the great American spirit of ingenuity will continue to guide

our future.

This area—encompassing not only the landmark Colt gun factory but also the

Armsmear mansion, a historic church, beautiful gardens, and much morerepresents

an essential part of our state’s and nation’s history that must be preserved for, and

understood by, future generations.

Sam Colt, born in Hartford in 1814, lived a life of legend. He was fascinated with

machinery as a boy, and among the devices that he tinkered with were his father’s

firearms, taking them apart and putting them together again every chance he got.

When he was just 15 years old, Samuel decided he needed some adventure, so he

found a ship that was building a crew and went to sea upon it.

They say it was while at sea that Samuel Colt developed his idea for a pistol with

a revolving cylinder—an idea that transformed the firearm from a single-shot device

into a multiple-shot device and changed American industrial, economic, and of

course military history.

That began a career of invention and ingenuity that ranks Colt among the most

impressive American innovators and captains of industry of any era. The company

went on to found would develop the breech pistol—which became one of the standard small arms of the world. Production of that firearm helped build a small empire.

By 1856, Colt was producing 150 weapons a day; and the product’s reputation for

exceptional quality, workmanship, and design had spread around the world, making

Colonel Colt one of the ten wealthiest businessmen in the U.S.

When Sam Colt died in 1862 just when many of his products were arming Union soldiers to fight the Civil War—he was worth $15 million. Today, his inheritance

would be worth at least 20 times that amount.

There was a saying popularized after the Civil War, and after Sam Colt had

passed away, that ‘‘Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them

equal.’’

And the legacy of the Colt operation goes well beyond the manufacture of guns.

Colt himself invented a submarine battery used in harbor defense, a submarine telegraph cable, and other technologies. And the success of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt’s

business helped catalyze other industrial advancements in Connecticut and throughout New England, including the manufacture of sewing machines, typewriters, locks

and keys, and Pratt and Whitney engines. Colt’s company exemplified a critical advance in U.S. industry: interchangeable machine-made parts. This development was

a crucial enabler of U.S. manufacturing.

The early industrial innovators represented the same pioneering spirit of American ingenuity that we see today in defense technology, information technology, and

biotechnology firms. We sometimes take all that innovation for granted. But even

those who constantly look forward can and should look back at their heritage.

The industrial revolution transformed our nation culturally and economically like

no other force ever has. People moved into the cities. Living standards rose. The

middle class grew. Economic growth intensified. The virtuous cycle that still fuels

our economy and produces prosperity today began.

12

As a pivotal part of that history, Coltsville deserves recognition, protection, and

canonization as a national park. Our past is a treasure. We should cherish it, learn

from it, and respect it—because when we respect it, we are respecting, and protecting, our values.

The Coltsville Study Act is a first step in giving this nationally significant area

the acknowledgment that it deserves. My staff has been in contact with the owners

of the area and they are willing to work with the National Park Service to continue

the process towards the creation of a national park.

Finally, I want to say how much I also appreciate the Committee’s willingness to

consider the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act of 2001. The Act

instructs the Department of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study for the potential addition of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett Trail to the National Trails System. The trail would extend approximately 260 miles through Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

This proposal enjoys widespread support in my home state of Connecticut, and deservedly so. The trail created would pass through the state’s most diverse landscapes, from densely populated urban centers to cool, forested woodlands, streams

and ponds. It would wind past picturesque agricultural fields, and climb atop sheer

cliff faces offering sweeping views across the Connecticut’s central valley. On a clear

day, hikers on the Metacomet Trail can see Long Island Sound to the south, and

Mt. Tom in Massachusetts to the north. It’s a beautiful resource that should be preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to submit my testimony here today. I am

eager to work with Chairman Bingaman to ensure that these bills get expeditious

consideration by the committee.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimonies. We

certainly will consider them, and I know you have busy schedules,

so you may be excused.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Before I call on Senator Bennett, I just want to

say that Senator Thomas will not be here. He was called away, but

he has a statement that will be included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing regarding legislation for the

National Park Service. I welcome my Senate colleagues, the Administration’s representative and the witnesses to today’s National Parks Subcommittee Hearing.

I continue to have concern regarding designating additional National Heritage

Areas. At the recent April 18, 2002 hearing, I asked the National Park Service to

establish specific criteria for such designations.

As of today, Congress has already established 23 heritage areas. More recently,

we held a hearing on establishing three new areas, studying two potential heritage

areas and authorizing additional appropriations for an existing area.

To date, in the 107th Congress, 23 Heritage Area bills have been introduced. As

I have stated in the past, I support the need for providing some federal assistance

to State or local organizations responsible for protecting these valuable resources.

However, I continue to be concerned about the number of National Heritage Areas

that seem to be proliferating throughout the United States. I still believe we need

to define a consistent policy regarding establishment, funding and termination of

authority for these sites before we establish any new areas.

The Administration continues to come before this Subcommittee indicating their

support of legislation, yet requesting Congress defer action in an effort to further

eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog. I am interested in hearing from the administration how the passage of each of these bills would affect the ability of the

National Park Service to care for and protect resources already under the jurisdiction of the Service. In addition, I am interested in hearing from our witness on why

National Park Service funds should be used for a non-Park Service project.

I thank all of the witnesses for coming today and I look forward to hearing your

testimony.

Senator AKAKA. We are glad to have you here today, Senator

Bennett. You may proceed with your statement.

13

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR

FROM UTAH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you.

I want to welcome some witnesses from Utah, Fred Esplin, who

is the vice president for university relations at the University of

Utah, and Wilson Martin, who is the acting director for the Utah

Division of State History and State Historic Preservation for the

State of Utah. They have come here to lend their support and their

expertise to the issues that are before the committee, and I would

say if you have any technical questions as to what is involved, do

not ask me, ask them. They will be able to explain them better

than I can.

I have two pieces of legislation that I would like to discuss with

the subcommittee this afternoon. One is the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Act. This would designate some 250 miles along

Highway 89 as a National Heritage Area. Now, if you grew up in

Utah as I did, Mr. Chairman, in the old days before the interstate

there were two highways in Utah, and you would talk about going

to southern Utah, go down 89 and come back 91, or vice versa, and

that was the way you got around the State when my father ran for

political office, and you would catch all of the towns down 89 and

back 91.

When the interstate system came into existence, 91 virtually disappeared and became I-15, which got all of the traffic and all of the

commercial development, and the towns along I-15 began to boom.

The towns along 89 have retained very much the rural character

and the nature that they had for a long, long time, and if you want

to get from the Wasatch Fault to southern Utah in a scenic way,

you go down 89. You may come back 91, or vice versa again, but

as I say, 91 is now I-15, and you do it at 75 miles an hour, maybe

a little more if the highway patrol is not watching, but down 89

you want to linger a little, and you want to savor the various businesses and other establishments that are there.

So to recognize the unique character of this highway, I have introduced this legislation to designate it as a Mormon Pioneer Heritage Highway. This will in no way affect private property or land

use planning or zoning, but we think it will open up an area to

tourism and to a more leisurely exploration of the far West that

will be tremendously beneficial not only to the people who live and

run businesses along Highway 89, but to the tourists that will

come and discover that there is something other than a freeway,

four-lane, high speed available to them as they go through Utah’s

unique history, so I would be very grateful for any support the

committee might be able to give to this legislation designating

Highway 89 as the National Heritage Highway.

The other bill that I have proposed has to do with artifacts that

have been taken from Federal lands and so far stored at the University of Utah, because everyone knows that they must not be

thrown away, they must not be disposed of, but they are not quite

sure what to do with them.

Now, the building where these artifacts are stored was when I

went to the University of Utah the library, and it was constructed

as a library, which seemed very avant garde and forward-looking

14

in the 1930’s when the building was put up. One of the problems

with it is that it does not have any seismic stability—they were not

worried about that in the 1930’s, and it is very close to the

Wasatch Fault.

It has inadequate fire protection and antiquated heating and

ventilation, and air conditioning system, and one of the unique aspects of it, because they thought it was going to be used as a library in perpetuity, they made the struts that hold the shelves for

the library books load-bearing, so you cannot take them out and

take the stacks that I used to wander into when I was looking for

a solution to my homework assignment and turn them into anything else, and as a consequence these artifacts stored in this old

building are in serious jeopardy of being destroyed.

Now, the University of Utah, together with the State of Utah, is

proposing a significant new museum to house and display these artifacts that are of great interest, particularly to the Native American cultures. The Indians, if that is the proper term, that produced

these artifacts predate all of today’s Indian tribes. This goes back

to the forefathers of today’s more modern tribes, and this is a very,

very precious store of artifacts of all kinds, clothing, cooking utensils, all aspects of their Indian life.

Why is there a Federal issue with respect to this? Simply because all of these artifacts have come from Federal lands. Utah is

two-thirds owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is our largest landowner. The Federal Government is the

steward of the lands that produced these artifacts and therefore, in

my view, the Federal Government has a responsibility to see to it

that they are properly taken care of.

Now, we are not asking that the Federal Government shoulder

the total responsibility of taking care of these artifacts. The legislation would guarantee that no more than 25 percent of the cost of

this museum would be borne by Federal funds. All of the rest of

it would come from donations to the University of Utah and to the

museum from private sources, but we found, as we have gone out

to try to get a hold of these private funds, that there is some resistance on the part of foundations and others, couched in these terms.

They said, these artifacts come from Federal lands. They are of

international significance. They have to do with all kinds of Federal interest and Federal concern. If the Federal Government is not

interested to some degree, then maybe these artifacts are not, in

fact, as precious as you are trying to tell us they are, so we are

asking for the Federal Government to reverse, if you will, the

matching process that sometimes goes in, where the Federal Government puts up the bulk of the money and then gets a few extra

dollars. Turn it around and say, the Federal Government put up

a few dollars and match them at least 3 to 1 or maybe better as

the private donations come in, to see to it that these artifacts that

are recovered from Federal lands, that are the result of Federal

management of the Federal land, are then preserved in such a way

that all of Americans, not just Utahans, indeed, people from all

over the world can come see them properly preserve in air conditioned, seismically sound, preserved circumstances that will not

allow them to deteriorate, and at the same time see to it that Utah

15

carries the primary burden, because we are the ones who will have

the collection in our State.

That is the rationale behind this legislation, and the reason why

I hope the committee will give it careful consideration. As I said

at the outset, full details about this will be available from those experts from Utah who have traveled here to give their testimony

this afternoon.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony, Senator Bennett. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses from

your State, and I thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Now I would like to call on our administration

witness, Brenda Barrett, who is the National Coordinator for Heritage Areas, National Park Service, Department of the Interior. It is

good to have you before us again, and we will welcome you back

to the subcommittee. I want you to know we will include your full

statements in the record, and so please feel free to summarize your

remarks. Please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRENDA BARRETT, NATIONAL COORDINATOR

FOR HERITAGE AREAS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. BARRETT. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I want to thank you

for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the

Interior on seven bills today, and I will present abbreviated testimony on S. 139 and H.R. 3928 to fund the construction of a new

facility for the Utah Museum of Natural History. The Department

opposes these bills. We are committed to supporting the presidential initiative to eliminate the backlog of maintenance in our

parks, and we believe that limited funds should be directed to

those needs. The Department, of course, is willing to provide the

museum with assistance in assessing other curation options for its

collections.

In S. 1609 and H.R. 1814, to study the designation of the

Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail through Massachusetts

and Connecticut as an addition to the National Trail System, the

Department supports this study. However, no funding has been requested for fiscal year 2003, and any funding requests should be

directed towards completing previously authorized studies. Today,

there are also three bills proposing the designation of National

Heritage Areas. While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of each of these designations, we recommend that the committee defer action during the remainder of the 107th Congress to

meet our commitment to addressing presidential directives to eliminate the backlog on S. 1925 to establish Freedom’s Way. The Park

Service has reviewed the feasibility study and an addendum to that

feasibility study, and finds that these documents meet our interim

criteria for designation, and we also note that Minuteman National

Historic Park is located in the area and related thematically to

Freedom’s Way. We have a specific amendment on requiring a map

reference in this bill.

On S. 2196, to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage

Area in Nevada, we have also reviewed a feasibility study prepared

by Utah State University, and find that it meets our criteria, and

16

we were also able to tour this area with Vic Knox, the State Director for the National Park Service, with State officials, and with a

member of Senator Bennett’s staff, and that provided additional information on the feasibility and suitability of this area. We are proposing an amendment on this bill to address the public lands

issues in this area to propose eliminating the loan program and to

clarify the map boundaries.

For S. 2567, to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in New Mexico, the National Park Service Office in San

Jose has worked with representatives of the three counties and

tribal organizations, and based on this work and a number of earlier National Park Service studies on the special resources in New

Mexico, we believe that the area meets our interim criteria for designation.

On S. 2388, authorizing a special resource study of certain sites

in Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the post Civil War Reconstruction Area, and to evaluate those resources’ national significance suitability and feasibility for designating the area as a unit

of the National Park Service, we support that study. However, it

was not included in the 2003 budget, and would have to await the

completion of other studies. In addition, we have recommended

amendments to this legislation to authorize a National Historic

Landmark theme study on the Reconstruction Era, an amendment

to clarify that the region includes all of Beaufort County, and to expand the study period from 2 to 3 years.

Finally, for S. 2519, to undertake a study of Coltsville in Hartford, Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the National Park System, the Department supports this study, but again we did not request funding in 2003. We do note, though, that the value of the

resources have been examined in part in a larger National Park

Service study on the Connecticut River Valley completed in 1998,

and that the resource does complement our Central Armory National Historic Site in Massachusetts.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I will be glad

to take questions from you and any other members of the committee. Thank you.

[The prepared statements of Ms. Barrett follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF BRENDA BARRETT, NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR

HERITAGE AREAS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 139 AND H.R. 3928

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 139 and H.R. 3928, a bill to assist in the preservation

of archeological, paleontological, zoological, geological, and botanical artifacts

through construction of a new facility for the University of Utah Museum of Natural

History, Salt Lake City, Utah. H.R. 3928 passed the House of Representatives on

March 19, 2002.

The Department opposes the enactment of S. 139 and H.R. 3928. Our opposition

does not detract from the significance and importance of the museum as a place of

learning and as a keeper of important collections that showcase many features of

America’s past. We encourage the University and the State of Utah to continue to

seek funding and other solutions for the preservation and protection of the collections, including working with existing programs managed by all of the federal agencies with collections stored at the museum.

We appreciate the interest the museum has in providing the highest level of care

to the objects in its collection. However, we believe the use of limited National Park

17

Service appropriations to fund the design, construction, and operation of non-National Park Service projects of this type is inappropriate.

The Department is committed to supporting the President’s Initiative to eliminate

the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks. We believe funds are more

appropriately directed at this time to reducing the long list of necessary but deferred construction projects, as well as those meeting curatorial needs, that have

been identified in our national parks.

S. 139 and H.R. 3928 authorize the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the availability of appropriations, to award a grant to the museum to pay for a federal share

of the cost of construction of a new facility. The bill states that more than 75 percent of the museum’s collection have come from federal lands and have been collected for a number of years. Items in the collection have come from land managed

not only by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest

Service, but also the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—

agencies not mentioned in the legislation. The Federal share of the cost for this

project is not to exceed 25 percent. A total of $15 million is authorized to be appropriated as a grant to the University of Utah. Federal funds are to be used for the

design, planning, furnishing and equipping of the museum.

The University of Utah is in Salt Lake City and the Museum of Natural History

has been designated by the state legislature as the State museum of natural history.

Current exhibit and storage facilities are inadequate and place the collection in danger. We realize that museum facilities throughout the country, including the University of Utah Museum of Natural History, are in need of improved conditions to allow

them to adequately protect and preserve the objects in their care.

Due to the financial implications of the bill on national parks and park programs,

we must oppose S. 139 and H.R. 3928. However, the Department is willing to work

with all of the involved agencies and the museum to thoroughly assess all possible

alternatives for providing the highest level of care to the objects currently housed

at the museum, including, if necessary, the transferring of collections to federal repositories.

S. 1925

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today to present the Department’s views on S. 1925, a bill to

establish the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area, we recommend that the Committee defer action

on S. 1925 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the President’s initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to focus

our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. While designation of the heritage area will not result in additional acquisition or capital costs,

the authorization provides for up to $1 million per year in grant assistance costs

not to exceed $10 million over the 15-year period after the date of the bill’s enactment.

The proposed Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area includes 36 Massachusetts

and 6 New Hampshire communities northwest of Boston. It includes the Minute

Man National Historical Park, the Oxbow and Great Meadows National Wildlife

Refuges, the Concord, Assabet and Sudbury Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as National Historic Landmarks and Districts, and many sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

This is a region that substantively influenced our democratic forms of governance

and the development of intellectual traditions that underpin the concepts of American freedom, democracy, conservation, social justice, and ethnic diversity. Historically prominent leaders in literature and intellectual thought found the region to be

a source of inspiration including Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Louisa May Alcott. It was also the locale for expressions of

religious freedom and social experimentation with the settlements of the Shakers,

Millerites and Transcendentalists. Its natural and community resources are exceptional examples of the rural beauty of the New England landscape. The events that

occurred here during the American Revolution include the ride of Paul Revere and

the engagements at Lexington and Concord, which are known to virtually every elementary school child in the nation.

The concept of a Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area was defined in a feasibility study undertaken by the proposed management entity, the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association, Inc. Priorities outlined in this study speak to linkages through eduVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
18

cation and preservation of the region’s nationally distinctive natural and cultural resources through partnerships. The region has a strong partnership base among its

many cultural institutions, businesses, non-profit organizations, local governments,

and citizens. The governors of both states have endorsed the designation.

In the opinion of the National Park Service there are four critical steps that need

to be taken and documented prior to the Congress designating a heritage area.

These stages are:

1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study;

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;

3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents

for the proposed designation; and

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition

to the local citizenry.

The National Park Service reviewed the national heritage area feasibility study

undertaken by the proposed management entity in July 1997. Since it did not fully

address the interim national heritage area criteria, representatives of our Northeast

Region conducted field reconnaissance visits in November 2000. Based on the findings of the reconnaissance team, the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association submitted

an addendum in April 2001 to the 1997 Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area Feasibility Study entitled ‘‘The Proposed Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area and

Compliance with the National Park Service Interim Criteria for National Heritage

Area Designation.’’ The Service has evaluated that addendum, as well as the original feasibility study, and finds that the criteria have been fully addressed and met.

We believe that the management entity will have an opportunity during the development of a heritage area management plan to refine the many available themes

for the heritage area so that a more selective and cohesive vision of the region and

its rich assemblage of natural and cultural resources may be achieved.

We also note that Section 4(b)(1) of the bill does not contain a map reference number and does not require that a copy of the map be available at the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. Should the committee decide to take further action on this bill, we would be willing to work with the committee on the appropriate

language for this section of the bill.

S. 2196

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.

2196, a bill to authorize the establishment of the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage

Area in the State of Utah.

While the Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the National

Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area, we recommend that the Committee defer action on

S. 2196 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. To meet the President’s initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to continue to focus our

resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. While designation of the heritage area will not result in additional acquisition or capital costs,

the authorization provides for up to $1 million per year in grant assistance costs

not to exceed $10 million through the fiscal year 2020.

S. 2196 would establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area along the

Highway 89 corridor and other specified highways passing through Utah’s Kane,

Garfield, Piute, Sevier, Wayne and Sanpete Counties. The bill designates the Utah

Heritage Highway 89 Alliance as the management entity for the heritage area. The

Alliance is the heritage arm of the Panoramaland Resource Conservation and Development Council, which is registered with the IRS as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The bill also authorizes the development of a management plan for the heritage area. If the plan is not submitted within three years, the heritage area becomes

ineligible for federal funding until a plan is submitted to the Secretary. Additionally,

S. 2196 outlines the duties of the management entity and prohibits the use of federal funds to acquire real property or interests in real property. The Secretary

would be authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to develop and implement the management plan.

The proposed National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would help to tell the nationally significant story of the settlement of a large portion of the western United

States by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The proposed area contains the best remaining examples of a series of small agricultural

communities that were typical of this Mormon colonization.

The settlement story builds on the story of Mormon emigration, which is preserved by the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail. The National Mormon PioVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
19

neer Heritage Area would help complete this story by speaking to the hardships

faced by these pioneers in creating communities in this rugged landscape and the

unique pattern of settlement that at one time encompassed a major portion of the

western United States.

In addition to this primary theme, the proposed Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area has numerous additional themes and assets. Native Americans occupied

the area prior to Mormon settlement and the story of the three-way conflict between

the Mormon settlers, Native Americans and the United States Army is a fascinating

chapter in United States history. There is also extensive evidence of prehistoric inhabitants in the area.

The proposed heritage area is set in a dramatic and diverse natural landscape,

encompassing everything from the red sandstone country to beautiful valleys to high

alpine country. Recreational opportunities are plentiful; the area provides linkages

to three National Parks, three National Monuments, eight State Parks, three National Forests, and many miles of Scenic Byways and Backways. The area is also

unique because of the collection of artisans, craftspeople, innkeepers, outfitters, museums and tour operators that are already telling the story of the area’s heritage.

The National Park Service has defined a National Heritage Area as a place where

natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally

distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity. Heritage conservation

efforts are grounded in a community’s pride and interest in its history and traditions. Preserving the integrity of the cultural landscape and local stories means that

future generations will be able to understand and define who they are, where they

come from, and what ties them to their home. Thus, through the designation of the

National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area, communities of the region would be better

able to understand their rich and complex heritage as well as share it with visitors

to the region.

As we have previously testified, there are several steps the National Park Service

believes should be taken prior to Congress designating a national heritage area to

help ensure that the heritage area is successful.

The steps are:

1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study;

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;

3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents

for the proposed designation; and

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition

to the local citizenry.

We believe that studies that have been completed or are underway meet the intent of these criterions. The proposed establishment is based on many years of work

conducted by various local community organizations in Utah.

A Utah State University study, completed this year, documented the extensive

heritage, recreational and educational resources within the area. It supports the

designation of the area as a heritage area. It would also serve as an excellent foundation for the management plan for the heritage area, for it identifies significant

resources and provides preliminary suggestions on how to improve and protect the

resources of the region. Numerous additional studies have been done to evaluate the

historical resources of the area, for the communities included in the proposed heritage area contain six National Historic Districts and over 4,000 buildings that are

either on or have the potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic

Places.

The Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance is governed by a board that has members

from each of the six counties involved representing artists, craftspeople, heritagerelated business owners, innkeepers, restaurateurs, tour operators and outfitters,

county extension agents, local government representatives, county economic development directors, and organizations such as Chambers of Commerce and Main Street.

This broad-based organization is representative of the strong local political support

for heritage preservation and the creation of the proposed National Heritage Area.

We understand that the mayors of all the communities and each of the six county

commissions are supporting the proposed heritage area.

A number of Federal agencies, including prominently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are major land managers within the area covered by this legislation. For example, the BLM is the predominant Federal land manager in the southern portion of the proposed National Heritage Area which includes portions of the

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, several visitor contact stations, and

important historic and scenic sites. We believe that the legislation should allow for

20

the participation of all Federal partners, along with state, tribal and local partners,

in the proposed National Heritage Area.

Section 5(c)(1) of the bill gives the management entity the authority to make loans

to various entities. Section 6 makes additional references to loans. No criteria or administrative guidelines are provided, and possible liability is not addressed. We believe there are more effective ways for management entities to use limited federal

funds than creating loan programs, and we recommend that the provisions concerning loans be removed from the bill.

We would also request that the boundaries be clarified to assist the Secretary in

preparing a map of the proposed National Heritage Area as the bill provides.

Additionally, should the committee decide to take further action on this bill, we

would be willing to provide appropriate language to address the role of all federal

partners, revise the language concerning loans and clarify the boundaries.

S. 2519

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2519. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study of Coltsville, a site in Hartford, Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

The Department supports this study. However, we did not request additional

funding for this study in fiscal year 2003. We believe that any funding requested

should be directed towards completing previously authorized studies. There are 37

studies pending currently, of which we hope to transmit at least seven to Congress

by the end of 2002. To meet the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred

maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing

areas in the National Park System. We caution that our support of this legislation

authorizing a study does not necessarily mean that the Department will support

designations of this area as a unit of the National Park System. The study would

be undertaken with the full involvement of representatives of the State of Connecticut, the City of Hartford, property owners in the study area, and other interested

organizations and individuals in the region.

The bill directs the National Park Service to study the site commonly known as

‘‘Coltsville,’’ and its surrounding area within the City of Hartford, to evaluate its

national significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park System. The bill also directs NPS to evaluate the importance of the site

to the history of precision manufacturing.

At the core of the Coltsville area, which is estimated at some 260-acres, is the

17-acre Coltsville Heritage Park. Owned by a non-profit subsidiary of the Goodrich

Corporation, this site contains ten historic buildings, some of which are occupied by

commercial, residential, and office tenants; a number of artists also live and work

in the complex. Also within the study area, but in separate ownership, are examples

of former Colt worker housing and other buildings associated with Colt history. The

potential study area borders Interstate 91, which parallels the Connecticut River,

and is close to the central business district where the State Capitol and Museum

of Connecticut State History are located. The State Museum is a major repository

of Colt-related artifacts and archives, as is the Wadsworth Atheneum, a renowned

museum also in the city center.

Samuel Colt was born in Hartford in 1814 and died there in 1862. He obtained

his first patent in 1836 and went on to found a company that is still in operation

today, although it moved from the historic armory to West Hartford, Connecticut

and is no longer owned by the Colt family. The Colt name is known throughout the

world. Colt firearms and other products have been used in every major conflict from

the U.S.-Mexican War to the present.

The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed military tactics and

eventually made the sword obsolete in combat. First produced in 1847, it maintained its reputation through the Civil War despite competition from other manufacturers. Colt’s salesmanship was legendary, and the company grew due to his marketing, advertising, and public relations skills. He began construction of his first factory in Hartford in 1847. At the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, Colt revolvers were displayed and their interchangeability demonstrated as a highlight of

the ‘‘American System of Manufacturing.’’ Colt was so impressed with his reception

in England that he would build a factory there, becoming the first American to set

up a manufacturing plant overseas.

The Hartford facility expanded in the mid-19th century. The armory’s distinctive

blue onion dome, a Hartford landmark visible from I-91, was built in 1855. In order

to attract laborers, Colt built a self-contained community surrounding the factory

at Coltsville that included housing, gardens, beer halls, and a band. A library and

21

school were established for the children of the workers, as well as a church and social hall. Many of these structures are still extant and are part of the Colt Industrial National Register District that was listed in 1976. The Colt family home,

Armsmear, a National Historic Landmark, and its surrounding grounds are situated

in Colt Park, abutting the armory site. The original factory burned in 1864, but was

rebuilt soon after.

Colt would continue to supply sidearms to the United States military until 1985.

Colt weapons were carried not only by the American soldier on the frontier, but

were the personal weapon of choice of cowboys, both famous and infamous.

Colt history complements that of Springfield Armory National Historic Site, which

is managed by the National Park Service in Springfield, Massachusetts, 25-miles

north of Hartford along the Connecticut River. Originally Springfield Armory produced shoulder arms while Colt made handguns. Later they worked together to

bring the rapid-fire gun and later the machine-gun into the inventories of the U.S.

military. But in 1961 Colt challenged Springfield Armory’s M14 rifle while promoting its competing AR-15, now known as the M16 rifle. This ultimately resulted in

the demise of Springfield Armory in 1968.

The Colt story is also the story of Elizabeth Colt, who took over the factory after

her husband’s death in 1862, and ran it successfully for another 39 years. The history of this remarkable woman is not well-known and should be included as part

of the study.

In our 1998 Connecticut River Valley Special Resource Reconnaissance Study, we

said, ‘‘innovations stimulated by firearms manufacture, notably mass production

and the concept of interchangeable parts, had far-reaching consequences throughout

American industry.’’ As the skills developed in firearms manufacture were given

broader application, the corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Windsor,

Vermont became known as the ‘‘Precision Valley.’’ Developments in arms making

translated to other metal-working industries, such as sewing machines, typewriters,

bicycles, railway equipment, and clocks.

It is appropriate for the National Park Service to explore further this theme of

American history. Only through further investigation will it be possible to determine

if it is feasible and suitable for inclusion in the National Park System.

S. 2388

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on S. 2388. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to conduct a special resource study of certain sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era.

The Department supports S. 2388, with amendments described in this testimony.

However, the Department did not request additional funding for this study in Fiscal

Year 2003. We believe that any funding requested should be directed towards completing previously authorized studies. Presently, there are 37 studies pending, of

which we hope to transmit at least 7 to Congress by the end of 2002. To meet the

President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System. Thus, we have concerns about potential new funding requirements for new

park units, national trails, wild and scenic rivers or heritage areas. To estimate

these potential new funding requirements, the Administration will identify in each

study all of the costs to establish, operate and maintain the new site. At this time,

those costs are unknown.

S. 2388 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource

study of historical sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating

to the Reconstruction Era. The study would evaluate the sites’ national significance

and the suitability and feasibility of designating them as a unit of the National Park

System. The bill calls for the study to be conducted in accordance with P.L. 91-383

(16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.), which contains the criteria for studying areas for potential

inclusion in the National Park System, except that it requires the study to be completed within two years after funds are made available for the study, rather than

three years as the law provides for.

The Reconstruction Era is generally considered to be the period between 1863,

when the Emancipation Proclamation took effect, and the withdrawal of Federal

troops from the South following the Compromise of 1877 that resolved the contested

presidential election of 1876. The term ‘‘Reconstruction’’ reflects both the literal rebuilding of the war-ravaged South and the more metaphorical rebuilding of the

Union following the divisive and destructive conflict. It was a controversial, difficult,

and violent period in American history characterized by the adoption of new constitutional amendments and laws, the establishment of new institutions, and the ocVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
22

currence of significant political events all surrounding the efforts to reincorporate

the South into the Union and to provide newly freed slaves with political rights and

opportunities to improve their lives.

The Beaufort, South Carolina area contains a number of sites that are associated

with events and individuals significant to the Reconstruction Era. Among these are

the Penn School on St. Helena Island, the location of an important educational experiment in that era; the Freedmen’s Bureau, located at Beaufort College, where the

Federal Government conducted official business regarding emancipated slaves; the

Freedman’s Village of Mitchellville on Hilton Head Island; and sites associated with

Robert Smalls, an African-American who served in the U.S. House of Representatives during the Reconstruction Era.

The Department recommends several amendments to S. 2388. Most significantly,

we believe that it would be appropriate to add an authorization of a National Historic Landmark theme study on the Reconstruction Era that would be conducted in

tandem with this proposed special resource study. A theme study would enable the

National Park Service to establish a context for determining the significance of different sites related to Reconstruction in relationship to one another. Although historians generally view the Beaufort sites that would be studied under S. 2388 as historically significant, the National Park Service has not determined how significant

these sites are in comparison to other sites associated with Reconstruction. A theme

study would help provide that information.

In addition, we recommend the following changes to S. 2388:

First, we recommend that the short title in Section 1 be changed to reflect that

the study would center on sites in Beaufort County, South Carolina.

Second, we recommend that the seventh finding in Section 2 be deleted. That finding says that ‘‘the National Park System does not have a park or historic site that

focuses primarily on the preservation and interpretation of the Reconstruction Era.’’

This is a factual matter that has yet to be verified. The existence, or lack, of Reconstruction Era resources in the National Park System would be investigated in the

study as part of determining whether the Beaufort sites would be a suitable addition to the National Park System.

Third, we recommend that the language defining the study area in Section 3

should be revised to be consistent with the specific sites cited. As drafted, the bill

says the study area means sites in the historic district of Beaufort, but then it

names several sites that are outside of the city of Beaufort. This matter could be

addressed by referencing the county of Beaufort, which encompasses all the sites

named in the bill.

Fourth, we recommend that the timeframe for the study provided in Section 4 be

lengthened from two years to three years, and that the study be required to determine the ‘‘national significance’’ of the area as well as its suitability and feasibility

for inclusion in the National Park System. These changes would be consistent with

P.L. 91-383, as amended by the National Park Service Omnibus Management Act

of 1998 (P.L 105-391).

We would be happy to work with the subcommittee to develop amendments for

the purposes described above.

S. 2576

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.

2576, a bill to authorize the establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National

Heritage Area in New Mexico.

The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the Northern Rio

Grande National Heritage Area, as it has the characteristics necessary to be established as a national heritage area and the potential to meet the expectations of the

National Park Service’s National Heritage Area Program. We recommend, however,

that the committee defer action on S. 2576 during the remainder of the 107th Congress. The Department has reviewed our progress on the President’s Initiative to

eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, and it is clear that we need to continue

to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National Park System.

While the designation of the heritage area will not result in additional acquisition

or capital costs, the authorization provides for technical and grant assistance costs.

Under this Act, total appropriations of $10 million are authorized through the fiscal

year 2017, of which not more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated for any fiscal

year. The Federal share of the costs for any activity funded under this Act shall not

exceed 50 percent.

S. 2576 would establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in

Santa Fe County, Rio Arriba County, and Taos County in New Mexico. The bill desVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
23

ignates the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, Inc. a non-profit corporation chartered in the State of New Mexico, as the management entity for the heritage area. The management entity would be made up of representatives from Santa

Fe County, Rio Arriba County, and Taos County, New Mexico, and Native American

Tribes participating in the heritage area. The bill also authorizes the development

of a management plan for the heritage area. If the plan is not submitted within

three years, the heritage area becomes ineligible for federal funding until a plan is

submitted to the Secretary. Additionally, S. 2576 outlines the duties of the management entity and prohibits the use of federal funds to acquire real property or interests in real property. At the request of the management entity, the Secretary would

be authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to develop and implement the management plan.

The creation of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area would encompass the long history of the cultural mosaic developed by Native American occupation, early Spanish settlement, Mexican Period settlement, mining, ranching, and

other pioneer settlements, and the continuing influence of people of Hispanic, AngloAmerican, and Native American descent. The area demonstrates the antiquity of native cultures as well as the genealogical longevity of the descendants of Spanish ancestors who settled in the area in 1598. The combination of cultures, languages, folk

arts, customs, and architecture make northern New Mexico unique within our national culture and history.

The National Park Service has defined a National Heritage Area as a place where

natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally

distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity. Heritage conservation

efforts are grounded in a community’s pride and interest in its history and traditions. Preserving the integrity of the cultural landscape and local stories means that

future generations will be able to understand and define who they are, where they

come from, and what ties them to their home. Thus, through the designation of the

Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, these peoples will be better able to

understand their rich and complex heritage as well as share it with the many visitors to northern New Mexico.

On a natural scale, the heritage area would provide a new partnership for management and protection of long natural vistas, isolated high desert valleys, mountain ranges and among the best air, water and night sky qualities found in the

United States. Few roadways interrupt the ridges and range topography. A variety

of flora and fauna are often present. Aside from its spectacular natural and scenic

vistas, the area includes outstanding recreational resources.

As we have previously testified, there are several steps the National Park Service

believes should be taken prior to Congress designating a national heritage area to

help ensure that the heritage area is successful.

The steps are:

1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study;

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;

3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents

for the proposed designation; and

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition

to the local citizenry.

We believe that studies that have been completed or are underway meet the intent of these criterions. The proposed establishment is based on many years of work

conducted by various local community organizations in New Mexico. One such study

by the National Park Service, Alternative Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization (1991), identified several alternatives consistent with the establishment of

a National Heritage Area, including coordination with supporting historical research

programs, such as the NPS Intermountain Spanish Colonial Research Center in Albuquerque, and NPS archeological research programs in Santa Fe. This report and

other related reports such as, The Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Feasibility Study

(1997), conducted in New Mexico have included input from organizations, agencies,

tribal representatives, a cross-section of citizens in the region, and potential partners who would be involved in the creation and management of a National Heritage

Area. This activity is consistent with Secretary Norton’s ‘‘4-Cs’’ effort, demonstrating

the benefits of consultation, communication and coordination in the service of conservation.

A number of Federal agencies, including prominently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service are major land managers within the area

covered by this legislation. For example, the BLM manages over a half million acres

of Federal land within the proposed Heritage Area including important cultural,

24

prehistoric, and historic sites as well as several Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACECs). We believe that the legislation should allow for the participation

of all Federal partners, along with state, tribal and local partners, in the Heritage

Area.

S. 1609 AND H.R. 1814

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1609 and H.R. 1814, bills

to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Metacomet-MonadnockMattabesett Trail extending through western Massachusetts and central Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Trails System. The trail would

traverse in a north-south direction from Falls Brook at the New Hampshire/Massachusetts state line and extend to the Long Island Sound east of New Haven, Connecticut.

The Department supports this study, with a technical amendment noted at the

end of this testimony. However, we did not request additional funding for this study

in fiscal year 2003. We believe that any funding requested should be directed towards completing previously authorized studies. There are 37 studies pending currently, of which we hope to transmit at least seven to Congress by the end of 2002.

To meet the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog,

we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing areas in the National

Park System. We caution that our support of this legislation authorizing a study

does not necessarily mean that the Department will support designations of these

segments as additions to the National Trails System.

The purpose of both bills is to conduct a study to determine the suitability for inclusion in the National Trails System of this 180-mile extended trail, which could

eventually connect the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Western Massachusetts with

Long Island Sound in Connecticut. The Trail would largely follow existing trails

linking the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts and Connecticut, to the

Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut. New trail sections would need to be developed in

Connecticut linking the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island Sound. Other shorter gaps

would also need to be filled. The great majority of this trail is located on private

land. Outside of sections of trail on state lands, the trail currently is permitted to

cross private land through a variety of agreements with the landowners. As part of

this study, these agreements should be examined to ensure that the National Park

Service works cooperatively with private landowners in an effort to continue public

access across these private lands if the trail is designated.

Although the region was heavily traveled by Native Americans, for whom the

trails have been named, it is not an historic route. Each section was conceived and

built by local trail enthusiasts and much of the work was initiated in the late

1950’s. The Connecticut Forest and Park Association has been the primary steward

of the Mattabesett Trail and the Connecticut portion of the Metacomet Trail. The

Appalachian Mountain Club, through its Berkshire Chapter, has picked up the responsibility for the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts. Organized volunteers provide the management and maintenance for each trail segment. If the trail

was designated as part of the National Trails System, then existing trail clubs

would be given the opportunity to assume a leadership role in working with landowners and communities to address any concerns they may have.

The existing sections of this proposed trail have similar scenic and recreational

characteristics to the segments of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The trails provide for a rare opportunity for multi-day,

overnight hiking trips in highly populated Connecticut and Massachusetts. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, the state governments and well-established trails organizations have made substantial commitments to the existing trail sections. Our experience with other national scenic and historic trails shows that trail clubs can and

should assume a leadership role in working with landowners and communities, addressing their concerns to make their trails successful. The opportunity for good

partnering exists in both states and is worthy of further exploration.

In June 2001, Secretary Gale Norton designated two sections of the MetacometMonadnock Trail as a national recreation trail, recognizing the outstanding scenic

features, geological formations, and natural and cultural resources along the route.

There are well over 800 national recreation trails in the National Trails System.

The designation as a national trail proposed in S. 1609 and H.R. 1814 would, if successful, provide more extensive Federal involvement, through the authorities of the

National Trails System Act for this chain of trails.

The National Park Service supports this proposed study, as the existing trail segments possess many of the characteristics required of a national scenic trail. Only

25

through further investigation will it be possible to determine if it is feasible and

suitable for inclusion in the National Trails System. Furthermore, in order to better

plan for the future of our national parks, we believe that any such studies should

carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each alternative considered.

If this legislation is enacted and funds are available, the National Park Service

would launch a study of the existing and proposed trails segments to evaluate the

support for the trail, the impacts of federal involvement on the communities and private property it passes through, and the resources that would be opened for public

use. The study would take approximately three years to complete and would, at a

minimum, follow the requirements listed in section 5(b) of the National Trails System Act. Through this process, the National Park Service looks forward to working

with and hearing the valuable input of the hundreds of communities that these

trails cross in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The long title of S. 1609 refers to conducting a study on the feasibility of designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail as a national historic trail. We

would like to clarify that this trail has the potential to be a national scenic trail,

instead of a national historic trail, and recommend amending the long title accordingly.

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.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Barrett, for your testimony. As you have heard, and if you have seen the lights, there

is a vote that has been called about 3 minutes ago, and so what

I will do is to call for a recess for about 15 minutes, and we will

get back with you.

[Recess.]

Senator AKAKA. The hearing will come to order. Thank you, Ms.

Barrett, for your testimony. Before I begin with questions on these

bills, I would like to bring one issue to your attention. I have a list

of several proposed amendments to various national park-related

public laws which make technical, clarifying, and other minor

changes. I believe you have this same list.

Ms. BARRETT. Yes, I do.

Senator AKAKA. My question is, can you tell me for the record

whether you are aware of these changes, and whether they accurately reflect the changes that need to be made?

Ms. BARRETT. I am aware of these changes, and they do indeed

accurately reflect the changes that need to be made to these pieces

of legislation, yes.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, and that is for the record.

I have a question for you about S. 139 and H.R. 3928, which

would authorize the use of National Park Service funds for the construction of a new building for the Utah State Museum of Natural

History. Would the funding come from park service appropriated

funds?

Ms. BARRETT. Well, the administration is opposing this bill because we are concerned about the financial impact to the National

Park System, especially in light of our maintenance backlog. It is

impossible for us to say from where the money would come within

the Park Service program, but obviously Park Service programs

could be impacted.

Senator AKAKA. And of course a question is, what would be the

consequences for other parks?

Ms. BARRETT. Well, their programs would be impacted, either

parks or Park Service programs would be impacted by a reduction

in funding.

26

Senator AKAKA. I want to ask you two additional questions about

National Heritage Areas which I know is your expertise. In your

testimony, you mentioned various procedural steps that the Park

Service believes should be taken before a heritage park is designated. The substantive criteria, or what substantive criteria does

the Park Service use to screen potential heritage areas for designation?

Ms. BARRETT. At this time, we have interim national criteria that

we use, and there are 10 points, and I will not go through each of

them, but I will say that we look to see if the area has an assemblage of natural and historic and cultural resources that really tell

important stories about the American experience that reflect traditions and customs and beliefs and folks life, that provide outstanding opportunities to conserve our natural and cultural historic features, that provide outstanding opportunities for recreation and

education, and that these themes are well represented in the landscape and by the communities that are present in a heritage area,

and then another important part of our criteria, of course, is that

residents and business interests and nonprofits and others are involved in planning the area and supported, that the proposal is

consistent with sustained economic activity in the area, and finally,

that there is an accepted, generally accepted boundary, and that

there is a management entity, a group that can carry out the plan.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I have just one more question for

you. From your experience working with heritage areas, do you

have any recommendations about how successful management entities should be structured—and any examples of management entities that have proven less successful?

Ms. BARRETT. Well, I have visited 20 out of the 23 currently designated National Heritage Areas, and there are three kinds of management structures. Some have Federal commissions that are authorized in the legislation, some use an arm of State government,

or a State authority to manage the heritage area, and the largest

number use a nonprofit organization, and from my observation I

think the nonprofit organizations seem to be the most effective, because they are really committed to raising the funds and they can

act a little more flexibly and nimbly than other organizations.

Now, many of these heritage areas, with commissions and States,

are doing good jobs, too, but I think the nonprofit is the most selected by all heritage areas, and it does seem to be very effective.

Senator AKAKA. Well, I thank you very much. It is good to hear

from an experts like you on heritage areas, and to hear that. I

thank you very much for your testimony and responses to the questions.

If Senator Bingaman has any questions, I would like to recognize

him.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, since we do have an expert here

on this subject, I just thought I would take the occasion to ask one

question.

In our discussion in New Mexico on S. 2576, some have raised

concerns that private landowners could in some way be affected by

this, that there is some authority being granted to the Federal Government or to a nonprofit organization established by this bill that

might affect private landowners adversely. The same concern has

27

been raised with regard to some of the local governmental entities

in the Indian pueblos as to whether this legislation, if enacted,

would override the existing authority that those organizations or

entities have, or would in any way preempt their authority.

The way I read it, the way I understand our intention, the way

the courts have interpreted this and based on the clear language

we have in this legislation, that would not be the case either with

regard to private landowners or with regard to existing governmental entities, including Indian pueblos. Is that also your understanding?

Ms. BARRETT. Yes, that is my understanding. Section 7 of the

Northern Rio Grande Heritage Area bill very explicitly addresses

this issue, and states that nothing in the act will expand or diminish any authorities of Federal, State, tribal, or local governments

to regulate or use any privately owned lands, and it also speaks

specifically to private property owners’ concerns, too.

Finally, in section 5 of the bill, as in many bills, it explicitly prohibits the management entity from even purchasing land or owning

land with using the Federal funds from the program, and I might

note that, again, of the 23 other National Heritage Areas, most of

their legislation has very similar provisions, and that these heritage areas work to unite nonprofit attractions and promote areas

and do historical research, and undertake historic and scenic recreational projects in a coordinated way, but they do not affect the

private property owners’ rights to their land, and they do not substitute their authority for that of local governments or tribal organizations on land use.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony.

I would like to call forward the next panel, Kathryn Cordova,

chair of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area Steering

Committee, El Prado, New Mexico, Mr. Fred Esplin, vice president

of university relations, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Ms.

Heather Clish, director of trails and riverway stewardship, Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston, Massachusetts, Mr. Jose Villa, vice

chairperson, interim board of directors, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, Espanola, New Mexico, Mr. Wilson Martin,

acting director and State historic preservation officer, Utah Division of State History, and Hon. Mary Whitney, city of Fitchburg,

Fitchburg, Massachusetts.

Thank you very much for coming. Welcome, and we look forward

to your testimony. May I call on Kathryn Cordova to begin? By the

way, before you do, I just want to remind you your full statements

will be included in the record, and you may summarize your statement. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN M. CORDOVA, CHAIR, NORTHERN

RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STEERING COMMITTEE, EL PRADO, NM

Ms. CORDOVA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the

views of the Citizens Committee on S. 2596, a bill to authorize the

establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area.

I am representing the citizen-based organization as its chairman.

28

A heritage area includes places where patterns of human activity, culture, history, and national resources remain worthy of preservation. We feel that our area includes these distinctions. Our heritage includes art and tourism as main industries. American Indians, Hispanics, and other cultures live side by side in scenic beauty. We hope to form partnerships with the National Park Service,

pueblos, agencies, and community organizations to plan, coordinate, and implement projects and services that recognize, respect,

and preserve the multicultural people and landscape of the designated area.

The American Encounters exhibits at Smithsonian Institute’s

Museum of American History attests to our cultural way of life in

New Mexico. It shows beautifully the blending of our cultures. In

mid-1999, the National Park Service’s staff in Santa Fe, New Mexico, met with Federal, State, local, and Native American government officials in a series of meetings to introduce a new concept.

That idea introduced the National Heritage Area topic to these

leaders. The officials provided favorable responses, and then it

went on to the citizens.

The year 2000 was a busy one for establishing community involvement. A series of public meetings in various communities followed. The objective was to introduce the idea to the citizens. At

each meeting, it seemed like there was more and more support, so

meetings would continue. I myself attended a meeting at the Sagebrush Convention Center in Taos. Our mayor, Frederick Peralta,

requested the citizens that were interested in serving on the committee to contact him. After hearing from the community, he selected some of the members, and I was chosen as one of them.

After that, Richard Mayer Lucero of Espanola in September 2000

called a meeting of everybody. All of us got together and it was determined then that everybody was interested, and therefore we

would form a steering committee. Nine of us were elected from that

group to serve on the steering committee. The steering committee

itself then elected officers and identified necessary tasks.

We have identified three New Mexico counties as part of this

area for several reasons. It is inclusive of the boundaries along the

corridor of the Rio Grande River. Our history also flows very well

along with the river, if you would call it that. It also includes a

manageable area. If we have too many counties, it is not likely to

be manageable, so that is why we determined the counties.

For the past 2 years, our group has met with many other organizations, agencies, and individuals. The packet I have prepared for

the hearing record will show you all the grassroots support. Here

we have city governments doing resolutions signed by their mayor,

voted upon by the city council, county support, which also includes

resolutions from all three counties signed by the county commissioners and managers. We attended the meetings and ask for their

help, then we went to the Eight Northern Pueblos Council.

Today, the Eight Northern Pueblos Council faxed a letter of support to Senator Bingaman’s office. However, before that, we were

meeting with individual pueblos in addition, because we realize the

pueblos are sovereign nations. Each one has its own heritage, but

we share a common history. They also have their own history, and

also the pueblos, many of them change governments every year.

29

They have a new Governor elected, that sort of thing, and so we

need to keep them updated, to keep those channels of communication open, and so we also have letters of support from four individual pueblos.

Four pueblo Governors attended the press conference called by

Senator Bingaman. There was only one Governor that we had not

been able to contact. He is very hard to reach. I bumped into that

particular Governor at a rosary. We have a mutual friend that

passed away, and I talked to him, and he said, when you get back

from Washington, I will meet with you, and we will also go have

a buffet lunch at my casino, so we will meet with that final Governor.

There are also three other entities that gave us support. The

New Mexico State legislature, which is quite a considerable contact, La Jicarita Enterprises, which is an economic communitybased group, and the Chimayo Preservation Council, and that

speaks to the preservation.

Our community members include a fairly broad cross-section of

residential areas and occupations. Every representative is very successful in his or her field at home, so we are proud of that. I think

that collectively we have spent thousands of hours on meeting

time, contacts, and NHA-related tasks. This is very extremely citizen-driven, and I would like to stress that. We have called upon

the National Park Service for technical assistance from time to

time, and always that seems to be a very, very good relationship,

so when we form a partnership with them we feel very comfortable

in working with them as well, and also the supporting groups,

agencies, and other governments will be very helpful.

We urge you to help us passing this, because that is our next

stage, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you

today.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony. I am

going to call on Mr. Villa for your testimony. Following that, I am

going to ask Senator Bingaman for a statement he may have.

STATEMENT OF JOSE ́ D. VILLA, VICE CHAIRPERSON, INTERIM

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL

HERITAGE AREA, ESPANOLA, NM

Mr. VILLA. Senator Akaka, thanks for having us here, and on behalf of Mayor Richard Lucero I would say gracias. We want to

thank you for your service to our great country.

I would like to say, I am going to summarize as you suggested,

because a lot of what Ms. Cordova has said I have also in my testimony, but I would like to say this, New Mexico has been part of

our great country since 1912, and to date we still have to remind

many of our country’s citizens that New Mexico is part of the

U.S.A., so I want that for the record.

I would like to say that at Senator Bingaman’s press conference

announcing his introduction of the Senate bill, Mayor Lucero spoke

eloquently and passionately about the peoples who for centuries

have developed our communities. He spoke about survival through

harsh times and circumstances, but most importantly he spoke

about families and relationships. He was particularly emphatic

about the fact that we are seeing separate Indian and Spanish

30

communities, but that there is really not much of a distinction, because our families share common roots and have grown together

through the centuries. He pointed out how together we have labored to till our soil, irrigate our thirsty crops with vivifying waters

from our acequias, built our homes, churches, capillas, and pueblos

from mud adobes, and joined in community festivals celebrating

the blessings of land, life, families, vecinos, our ancestors and our

saints.

Although a majority of American Hispanics share a common language, faith, customs, and traditions, nowhere, nowhere in our

great country is there a cohesive group of Hispanics who have

maintained a similar language, faith, and cultural characteristics

as have the Spanish-speaking people of northern New Mexico, and

I have worked throughout the Southwest. I taught in California for

23 years, and I know that California alone, for instance, has more

Hispanics than 42 of our 50 States have total populations in them,

and I also know that New Mexico, although it is large in geographic land area, has the highest percentage of Hispanics than

any other State in our country.

What makes us different? First of all, a common ancestry dating

back more than 400 years to the first Spanish colonizers. Secondly,

we have been sequestered in small towns and villages along the

Rio Grande, and in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, where we

have maintained an archaic Spanish dialect. Thirdly, our values,

which include faith in ourselves, in our families, in our communities, and in our religious practices. Fourthly, our art forms that

have been passed down from generation to generation by santeros

and santeras, and are now attracting thousands to the Santa Fe

Spanish Market, the Espanola Arts Festival, and the many cultural

festivities in Taos, and last but not least, respect for the land and

the beauty of our total environment.

Much of our celebration of life, La Santa Vida, is shared by our

brothers and sisters who are members of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos. We join them in their respective Saints Day observations, Indian dances, respect for the seasons, land and harmonious

celebrations of everything living. We attend their annual national

pow-wow, the Santa Fe Indian Market, and the many individual

pueblo activities. We take our families and friends to the Eight

Northern Indian Pueblo Market, and we worship with them.

What we envision from the establishment of the Northern Rio

Grande National Heritage Area is adding an important piece, missing from the American mosaic. That piece, which is all of us in this

designated area with our unique cultural characteristics, the stunning beauty of our landscape, our rich history, language customs

and traditions will enrich and enlighten all segments of our society.

All of us in the proposed Northern Rio Grande National Heritage

Area share in the traditions and culture that have come to us

through the centuries. The richness and worth of our heritage is

manifested in the Indian and Spanish Markets that attract visitors

and participants not only from all of our 50 States but from

throughout the world. Our traditions and culture have been incorporated in the explicit programs of the Smithsonian, and emphasize the American ability to be different while still being American.

31

The establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage

Area will permit us to serve the greater American purpose by demonstrating that we know how to work and be and grow together,

no matter our origins. I urge you, in the name of setting an example to the world, to pass S. 2376.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Villa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSE ́ VILLA, VICE CHAIRPERSON, INTERIM BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, NORTHERN RIO GRANDE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, ESPAN ̃ OLA, NM

Senator Daniel Akaka and members of this committee, thank you for this opportunity to inform you about our work to create a National Heritage Area along the

Rio Grande in Northern New Mexico. All of this effort the past three years has resulted from a vision shared by Espan ̃ ola Mayor Richard L. Lucero with Ernesto Ortega of the Santa Fe National Park Service Office. For years prior to that meeting,

Mayor Lucero had often spoken about and dreamed aloud about this event. His vision and leadership have guided and inspired us to this occasion. Today I am honored to stand before you to extend warm greetings from Mayor Lucero and to urge

you to turn his dream into reality.

New Mexico has been part of our great country since 1912. To date we still have

to remind many of our country’s citizens that New Mexico is part of the USA. Designating the Northern Rio Grande part of New Mexico as a National Heritage Area

would certainly assist our efforts in educating the rest of this great nation about

a spectacular section of our state and of our country. Further, it would inform them

about the significant history, culture, customs, and traditions of the Indian and

Spanish people who have not been adequately chronicled as an integral part of

American history.

At Senator Bingaman’s press conference announcing his introduction of a Senate

bill to create the Northern New Mexico National Heritage Area, Mayor Lucero spoke

eloquently and passionately about the peoples who for centuries have developed our

communities. He spoke about survival through harsh times and circumstances. But

most importantly he spoke about families and relationships. He was particularly

emphatic about the fact that although we are seen as separate Indian and Spanish

communities, there is not much of a distinction because our families share common

roots and have grown together through the centuries. He pointed out how together

we have labored to till our soil, irrigate our thirsty crops with vivifying waters from

our acequias, built our homes, churches, capillas, and pueblos from mud adobes, and

joined in community festivals celebrating the blessings of land, life, families,

vecinos, our ancestors and our saints.

I have worked throughout the country, and particularly in the Southwest and

California. My professional work has been devoted to the less advantaged in our society, particularly the Spanish-speaking peoples. I refer to a heterogeneous segment

of our society who, for a variety of reasons, have not been recognized for their many

contributions to our nation. But recently our collective voices are increasingly being

heard. We are of important value to the overall economic well-being of our country.

It is a well known fact that Americans of Hispanic origin, as a group, comprise a

greater purchasing power than the rest of the Spanish speaking world combined.

And Hispanics in America are the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the

world. There are more U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin in California than the total

population of 42 of the states of the United States of America. New Mexico’s percentage of citizens of Hispanic origin is a significant 42%. Although a majority of

American Hispanics share a common language, faith, customs and traditions, nowhere in our great country is there a cohesive group of Hispanics who have maintained a similar language, faith, and cultural characteristics as have the Spanishspeaking people of Northern New Mexico.

What makes us different? First of all, a common ancestry dating back more than

400 years to the first Spanish colonizers. Secondly, we have been sequestered in

small towns and villages along the Rio Grande and in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains where we have maintained an archaic Spanish dialect. Thirdly, our values

which include faith in ourselves, our families, our communities, and our religious

practices. Fourthly, our art forms that have been passed down from generation to

generation by santeros and santeras, and are now attracting thousands to the Santa

Fe Spanish Market, the Espan ̃ ola Arts Festival, and the many cultural festivities

in Taos. And last but not least, respect for the land and the beauty of our total environment.

32

Much of our celebration of life, la Santa Vida, is shared by our brothers and sisters who are members of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos. We join them in their

respective Saint’s day observations, Indian dances, respect for the seasons, land, and

harmonious celebrations of everything living. We attend their annual national powwow, the Santa Fe Indian Market, and the many individual pueblo activities. We

take our families and friends to the annual Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Market.

And we worship with them.

What we envision from the establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National

Heritage Area is adding an important piece missing from the American Mosaic.

That piece, which is all of us in this designated area, with our unique cultural characteristics, the stunning beauty of our landscape, and our rich history, language,

customs and traditions, will enrich and enlighten all segments of our society.

All of us in the proposed Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area share in

the traditions and culture that have come to us through the centuries. The richness

and worth of our heritage is manifested in the Indian and Spanish Markets that

attract visitors and participants from all 50 States of our Union and the world. Our

traditions and culture have been incorporated in the explicit programs of the Smithsonian and emphasize the American ability to be different while still being American. The establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National heritage Area will

permit us to serve the greater American purpose by demonstrating that we know

how to work and be and grow together no matter our origins.

I urge you in the name of setting an example to the world to pass Senate Bill

2376.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Villa.

May I call on Senator Bingaman for any statement you want to

make?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let

me just make a brief statement and congratulate both Ms. Cordova

and Mr. Villa for their testimony, their hard work and the hard

work of all the steering committee members. I know this has been

a labor of love, and that a very long, arduous effort has gone into

developing this legislation. I do think, as Ms. Barrett from the National Park Service said, that this can bring our various communities in northern New Mexico together, the Indian community, the

Hispanic community, the Anglo community, all of the different cultures that come together there, and can be a great benefit to us.

So I will not ask questions at this point, because I have had the

chance to visit with these witnesses and other members of the

steering committee before and strongly support this bill. Again, I

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including S. 2576 as one of the bills

to be considered at this hearing, and I hope we can move ahead

with it and pass it in this session of the Congress.

Thank you very much.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your statement. We will proceed

with the other witnesses, and following Mary Whitney I will have

some questions for, I think, almost each one of you, so let me call

on Mr. Esplin for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF FRED C. ESPLIN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE

CITY, UT

Mr. ESPLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I very much

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am here

to seek congressional support for S. 139 for a new Museum of

Science and Nature on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake

City. Utah, and the Intermountain West are places that are worldrenowned for their natural and cultural history. Millions of AmeriVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
33

cans and foreign guests visit our State and region every year. Over

the years, Utah has yielded vast and unique collections recording

its history, and now these are in the care of the Utah Museum of

Natural History at our university. We have, I believe in the materials you have received photographs of some of the extraordinary

objects that are in our collection.

Utah is a State that is almost 70 percent owned by the Federal

Government. By necessity, research on the natural and cultural

history takes place on federally managed lands. Collections obtained through this research and through other federally mandated

recovery programs are, in fact, federally owned. The university has

numerous pieces of correspondence from the Federal Government

which clearly establishes their presumptions of ownership over this

collection.

The museum and the university have not shrunk, however, from

our responsibility as caretakers. Over the years, we have made significant investments in infrastructure, personnel, and programs to

support the care of these important collections. We have asked for

and received very little from the Federal Government. In fact, during the collection’s 100-year history we have received less than

$300,000 in direct Federal support for the management of these

collections, but at this point we do need help. We have made significant and successful efforts to conserve the collections , but our

building, as Senator Bennett has pointed out, is not suitable for

any further upgrading and renovation as a museum.

I would also draw your attention to some of the photographs that

have been distributed earlier today, and as you can see from those

photographs, the facilities place the collections at risk both

through, as was mentioned, seismic safety issues, as well as water

pipes that are in areas of collections and so forth.

We have run out of room for existing collections, much less any

future additions, and yet research in the natural sciences continues

on the vast public lands, and the research facilities and the exhibit

space that is accessed by the American public is seriously insufficient for what we have been asked to do.

The university has stepped up to the plate, and has designed a

plan to secure these collection and to meet the American public’s

desire to have access to them. We are not here today to ask the

Federal Government to build a new museum, but rather to help us

build the new museum. It is fair to ask, then, what the university

has done toward this end.

We have actively solicited private donations, and already have a

donor who has pledged the largest single gift to a cultural institution in Utah. In fact, more than 20 percent of the cost of the project

has already been raised. We have secured the land, 14 acres adjacent to the university, with a commercial value of $8 million, and

the State of Utah has agreed to cover the building, operation and

maintenance cost in perpetuity, which is currently estimated at

$800,000 annually. We are confident we will match every Federal

dollar with at least $3 non-Federal. The total cost of the project is

anticipated to be $60 million, and we are asking the Federal Government for a quarter of that cost, or $15 million.

Museums are places of hope. The American public trusts museums. Museums are about our future, and in them we learn from

34

our past in order to make more informed decisions about our future. This museum was founded by the university and by the community so that Americans could have access to the Federal collections that have been recovered in our region, and we ask for your

partnership in creating this extraordinary new museum for the future.

Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Martin.

STATEMENT OF WILSON G. MARTIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

OFFICER, SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. It is my

pleasure to be here and address this subcommittee on S. 2196. I

would like to thank the chair for the opportunity, and I would like

to recognize the good work of the citizens of this significant part

of Utah who have asked me to represent them.

The proposal to create a National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area

comes as no surprise to the local citizens of this six-county area.

They have worked toward this goal for nearly 6 years, beginning

with the creation of the San Pete Regional Heritage Council. As a

result of that process, we have come to recognize that these six

counties encompass the most significant concentration of Mormon

heritage culture in the Nation. Citizens have held hundreds of

meetings in this grassroots effort. Too many studies have been

completed to name them all. The landscape’s historic and archaeological sites’ histories have been prepared, and all these studies

have been incorporated, as well as marketing plans and area economic development potential examined in the light of a National

Mormon Heritage Area.

The necessary question of whether the area has the appropriate

assemblage of national, historic, and cultural resources representing a distinctive aspect of American heritage worthy of recognition

has been answered. This is the place. A cohesive theme runs

through the landscapes, the historic sites, the foods, the traditions,

the life ways, the cultural activities, the arts, and the music. This

is a national significant Mormon heritage area.

The theme is absolutely clear and well-defined. It is unmatched

in any other part of the Nation. The area reflects the traditions,

customs, beliefs, and folk life of Mormon pioneers, and provides

outstanding opportunities in natural culture, historic, and scenic

features. Cultural traditions such as the Manti Miracle Pageant,

hand-made traditional products, and local heritage businesses are

all infused with the Mormon story. The area has sub-themes related to Native Americans and mining, but even these stories are

interwoven with the Mormon story.

The area contains dozens of buildings, historic sites, and historic

districts that are already listed on the National Registry of Historic

Places. A whole town, Spring City, is listed. Other town centers

and a large portion of other communities are already listed on the

National Registry of Historic Places.

The area offers equally impressive natural resources, Zion, Bryce

Canyon, and Capital Reef National Parks, and Cedar Breaks and

35

Grand Staircase National Monuments all lie within the confines of

this area. Three national forests, and one national recreation area

are located here.

To say the area is less than outstanding in its natural, cultural,

historic and scenic features would be a misstatement. The area is

home to the traditional Building Skills Institute, which has become

one of the largest institutes in America teaching traditional pioneer

skills in building and trades. I am proud to have been a founding

member of that great institution.

The Utah Heritage Products Alliance has assembled a coalition

of hundreds of businesses that are partnering in this project, not

just any businesses, but heritage businesses producing heritage

products or providing heritage lodging and experiences.

Nonprofit organizations that own and operate museums and

other facilities have joined with this coalition and are moving in

one direction, to interpret the theme. The six county commissions

have unanimously supported this designation, as does the State of

Utah and the mayors and town leaders in the area.

I would like to personally thank Senator Bennett, who toured the

area for 4 days. Through numerous town meetings he assessed the

citizens’ unanimity and support and the consistency of the Mormon

theme.

The appropriate organization with financial controls is now well

in place, having already managed several hundred thousand dollars in grants. More than $200,000 in grants coming directly from

my office gave me the personal opportunity to review their financial controls. I can testify personally that they are managed in an

appropriate and professional manner. The Federal Government,

Forest Service, and National Park Service have demonstrated their

support, and contribute to this designation. The management entity has the full support, commitment and working partnerships

needed to support the designation. The potential for economic activity continues because this, in fact, is a Mormon economic community. The appropriate conceptual boundaries and maps have been

reviewed again and again, and supported by the public. Specific

project plans are well-described.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an area that needs to be studied further. It is ready for designation and willing to take up the task of

developing a heritage management plan.

I would like to share one quick story. When the early pioneer settlers of Panguitch found themselves isolated by snow, and unable

to receive supplies, two groups were organized to head to the nearest towns, one to the West and one to the North. The group heading West had to cross a fairly high mountain pass. As they journeyed, the snow became so deep that the wagon wheels became

snowbound. Looking for help from their God, they left their wagons, spread their quilts in the snow, and knelt in prayer asking for

which way they might proceed.

Their prayers were answered. As they stood up, they noticed they

had not sunk into the snow as they knelt on their quilts. They

made their way by throwing quilts in front of them and picking up

those from behind. They found help, and were able to secure the

necessary provisions.

36

I have ancestors buried in this National Mormon Heritage Area.

Mormon people everywhere recognize this as having a concentration of traditions and culture that are intact, visible, and tangible.

It is a complete assemblage of the Mormon pioneer story. Mr.

Chairman, I urge you to move this designation, S. 2196, for full

consideration by the Senate.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Ms. Clish.

STATEMENT OF HEATHER CLISH, DIRECTOR OF TRAILS AND

RIVERWAY STEWARDSHIP, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB,

BOSTON, MA

Ms. CLISH. Mr. Chairman and committee, I would like to thank

you for inviting the Appalachian Mountain Club here today to

speak in support of S. 1609. We also commend the committee for

taking a leadership role and exploring new opportunities in New

England to enhance the network of hiking trails there. I am here

on behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club. AMC is what we like

to call ourselves. We are the oldest nonprofit conservation and

recreation organization in the United States, with over 93,000

members right now.

The AMC promotes the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of

the mountains, rivers, and trails of the Appalachian Mountain Region and provides regional and national leadership in trail corridor

planning, construction, and maintenance and trailhead protection.

AMC is responsible for the management, maintenance, and stewardship of over 1,400 miles of trail throughout the Northeast Region.

In addition to our professional trail crew, each year over 1,000

volunteers contribute thousands of hours of time to keeping the

trail system in top condition. We have a long experience of cooperatively working with Federal, State, and local agencies as well as

other nonprofit organizations to protect and care for trails, knowing

that the experiences that they provide are invaluable to the public

and the successful conservation and stewardship depends on the

availability of high-quality experiences in the natural world.

The trails identified and proposed to be studied for the feasibility

for inclusion in the National Trail System in S. 1609 provide

unique and valuable recreational opportunities in a central area of

New England, in addition to stunning vistas from key ridges and

peaks. The trail network passes along special streams, marshes,

lakes, and ponds while taking hikers and skiers through forests

and agricultural lands that provide both solitude and a glimpse

into the cultural character of the communities that host these

footpaths and their visitors.

The 100-mile Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

as it exists today is a resource that presents extensive opportunities for both long-distance backpacking as well as local day hiking

cross-country skiing, and other fitness activities that are all easily

accessible to people in the surrounding areas.

Ongoing efforts since the twenties and thirties to secure and to

maintain these trails have been critical to the continued enjoyment

of the trail and helped to preserve its landscape and the corridor

of fragile habitat reaching through Connecticut and Massachusetts.

37

The backbone of each stretch of the trail system consists of dedicated volunteers, including AMC members and its chapters as well

as Connecticut Forest and Park Association corps of volunteers.

These volunteers have identified the trail alignments, published

guides, and maintained the trails over the years to lessen the effects from overuse and unsafe conditions. AMC’s volunteers are

specifically responsible for the 117-mile Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail. Over 50 percent of the M&M trail, as we like to call it,

passes over private lands, and the locally based stewards of the

trail have established very positive relationships with the private

landowners to ensure appropriate use and to secure permission for

the trail crossings through agreements and informal understandings that have successfully kept the trail open for over 50 years.

The proposed study and potential inclusion within the National

Trail System would provide the volunteers with an additional

source of funding for maintenance and long-term planning. Inclusion with the National Trail System could also increase the organizational support to recruit additional stewards and garner additional resources for ongoing maintenance needs and landowner relations. Based on discussions we have had with our members and

partner organizations, the AMC offers its support for the feasibility

study of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail for the benefits that inclusion in the National Trail System will provide to recreational opportunities and the protection of the habitat corridor.

Based on the past development of national trails, AMC recognizes that the issue of public land acquisition and the methods

used for that acquisition are often of great concern, and may affect

local support for national designation as well as local support for

hosting existing trails through current and formal agreements. We

understand from AMC members and partner organizations that

this is a concern that will need to be addressed thoroughly during

the feasibility study prior to a designation of the M&M trail system.

AMC hopes this study will build on the good relations that now

exist among property owners in the maintaining clubs. We encourage the feasibility study to be conducted in a manner that continues to involve the maintaining clubs, trail associations, private

landowners, local land trusts, municipal governing boards, and

State land management agencies, as they have been in the course

of discussions up to this point.

The success of this initiative will depend largely on the communication among private landowners who, up until now, have generously allowed trail use through their properties. Since inclusion in

the National Trail System could also result in increased use of the

trails for long distance hikers, AMC also recommends the feasibility study include an assessment of the anticipated use, the adequacy of overnight facilities, and any additional maintenance and

management needs that would be required to accommodate new

users and avoid negative impacts to the trail system or the surrounding areas. With our experience, AMC will be pleased to serve

as a resource for information on trail usage in New England and

effective management tools for back-country overnight facilities in

that area.

38

Finally, AMC understands that there have been several discussions at the local level with maintaining clubs and State land management agencies. We hope that these discussions continue, and

that all input gathered through the stakeholder process will be considered in developing the whole scope of the feasibility study.

With that, I would like to thank you for consideration of AMC’s

comments in support of this bill. I urge your support as well. There

is written testimony that has been submitted to the committee

from AMC, and I have also submitted testimony on behalf of one

of our partner organizations, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, that is responsible for the Metacomet-Mattabesett section

that the committee has in their hand.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clish follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEATHER CLISH, DIRECTOR OF TRAILS AND RIVERWAY

STEWARDSHIP, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB, BOSTON, MA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The Appalachian

Mountain Club (AMC) appreciates the committee’s invitation to attend today’s hearing. I offer the following testimony for your consideration regarding the Senate Bill,

entitled ‘‘Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act of 2001.’’ The act

specifies that a feasibility study be done for the potential addition to the National

Trails System of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail, a network of trails

that extends southward approximately 180 miles from the Metacoment-Monadnock

Trail in western Massachusetts, across central Connecticut on the Metacomet Trail

and the Mattabesett Trail, and ending at Long Island Sound in Connecticut. We

commend the committee for taking a leadership role and exploring new opportunities in New England to enhance the network of hiking trails. Mr. Chairman and

members of the committee, I come before you today to speak in support of S. 1609

and offer the following recommendations.

The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the oldest non-profit conservation and

recreation organization in the United States with a membership of over 93,000. The

AMC promotes the protection, enjoyment and wise use of the mountains, rivers and

trails of the Appalachian Mountain region. AMC provides regional and national

leadership in trail corridor planning, construction and maintenance and trailhead

protection. AMC is responsible for the management, maintenance, and stewardship

of over 1,400 miles of trails throughout out the AMC region and each year over

1,000 volunteers contribute their time—many of them contribute a full week—to

keeping the trail system in top condition. AMC’s White Mountain Professional Trail

crew is responsible for nearly 350 miles of trails and 800+ trail signs. We work cooperatively with Federal, State and Local agencies as well as other non-profit organizations to protect and care for trails knowing that the experiences they provide are

invaluable to the public.

The trails identified and proposed to be studied for their feasibility for inclusion

in the National Trails System study in S. 1609 provide unique and valuable recreational opportunities in addition to stunning vistas from key ridges and peaks in

a central area of New England. This trail network pass along special streams,

marshes, lakes, and ponds while taking hikers and skiers through forests and agricultural lands that provide both solitude and a glimpse into the cultural character

of the New England communities that play host to these footpaths and their visitors. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide needed recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic

health for the region. AMC encourages people to enjoy and appreciate the natural

world because we believe that successful conservation and stewardship depends on

this experience.

The Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system as it exists today is a resource that presents extensive opportunities for both long distance backpacking as

well as local day hiking, cross country skiing, and other fitness activities that are

easily accessible to people in the surrounding communities. Ongoing efforts since the

1920’s and 1930’s to secure access to and maintain these trails have been critical

to the continued enjoyment of the trail and helped to preserve its landscape and a

corridor of fragile habitat reaching through Connecticut and Massachusetts. The

backbone of each stretch of this trail system consists of dedicated volunteers, including AMC members and its Chapters, that have identified the trail alignments, published guides, and maintained the trails over the years to lessen the effects from

39

overuse and unsafe conditions. AMC volunteers are specifically responsible for the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. Over 50 percent of the Metacomet-Monadnock trail

passes over private lands, and the locally-based stewards of the trail have established very positive relationships with private landowners to secure permission for

the trail alignments and ensure appropriate use through agreements and understandings that have successfully kept the trail open, despite occasional relocations,

for over 50 years.

The proposed study and potential inclusion within the National Trails System

would provide the volunteers with an additional source of funding for maintenance

and long-term planning. Inclusion within the National Trails System would also increase the organizational support to recruit additional volunteers and garner additional resources for ongoing maintenance needs and landowner relations. Based on

discussions we have had with our members and partner organizations, the AMC offers its support for the feasibility study of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett

Trail for the benefits that inclusion in the National Trails System could provide to

recreational opportunities and the protection of the habitat corridor.

Based on past studies and development of National Trails, AMC recognizes that

the issue of public land acquisition and methods used are often of great concern and

may affect local support for final designation as well as local support for hosting

existing trails through informal agreements. We understand from AMC members

and partner organizations that this is a concern that will need to be addressed thoroughly during the feasibility study prior to the designation of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system. AMC hopes that this study will build on the good

relations that now exist among property owners and the maintaining clubs. We encourage the feasibility study to be conducted in a manner that continues to involve

the maintaining clubs, associations, private landowners, and state land management agencies as they have been in the course of discussions leading to this point.

The success of this initiative will depend largely on the communication among the

private landowners, who up until now have generously allowed trail use through

their properties, and as well as reaching out to other interested parties.

Since inclusion in the National Trail System could result in increased use of the

trails by long-distance hikers AMC also recommends that the feasibility study include an assessment of anticipated use, the adequacy of overnight facilities, and any

additional maintenance and management needs that would be required to accommodate new users and avoid negative impacts to the trail system or the surrounding

areas. AMC would be happy to serve as a resource for information on trail usage

in New England as well as management tools for backcountry overnight facilities.

Finally, AMC understands that there have been several discussions at the local

level with maintaining clubs and state land management agencies. We hope that

these discussions continue and that all input gathered through the stakeholder process will be considered in developing the scope of the feasibility study.

Thank you for your consideration of AMC’s comments.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your testimony, and now I call on

Mayor Whitney, former mayor of Fitchburg.

STATEMENT OF MARY WHITNEY, FORMER MAYOR, CITY OF

FITCHBURG, FITCHBURG, MA, ON BEHALF OF FREEDOM’S

WAY HERITAGE ASSOCIATION

Ms. WHITNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to have

the opportunity to speak to you today. I represent Freedom’s Way

Heritage Association, and with me today is Alan Manoian from the

city of Nashua, New Hampshire, and Marge Darby, president of

Freedom’s Way, and many others. I am Mary Whitney, former

mayor of the city of Fitchburg, and it is a pleasure for me to be

here.

The morning of April 19, 1775, Lexington Green, dozens of farmer/militiamen mustered with the warning that the British regulars

were out to destroy colonist military stores in Concord. Captain

John Parker urged his men, stand your ground, do not fire unless

fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.

The militia refused to disperse when ordered to do so by the commander of the British regulars. The quick and collective response

40

of the citizens of the alarm was the result of seeds of emerging selfreliance and collective rights through democratic forms of town

government which were sown by this region’s preceding generations.

April 19 is an exclamation point after 100 years of germination

and cultivation of American democracy. The Freedom’s Way stories

are told within three interconnecting themes shaping the landscape

of democracy. For more than 100 years before the American Revolution, the New England towns shaped, reinvented, and adapted a

new form of governance, inventing the New England landscape.

This theme is about the ways people shaped the landscape to

their usage and in turn how the landscape shaped their society, rediscovering the Native landscape. This theme is about the land. It

is a story of the changes brought by the past 300 years.

Americans are seeking to reestablish their roots in this shared

heritage of freedom and liberty. Designation of Freedom’s Way as

a National Heritage Area provides a powerful vehicle for Americans to connect with a rich environment that sparked the American

Revolution and the nationally significant ideas and works of Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau, Alcott and others. The region just outside of Boston and stretching to central Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire is experiencing unprecedented growth that

will not be sustainable. Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area will foster cooperation between the public and

private sectors so that the growth and development will allow the

region to sustain itself and to keep its strong sense of place.

Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area provides an opportunity for the Minutemen National Historic Park

and other stakeholders to consider the environmental and historic

resources outside of park boundaries in a more meaningful way.

The depth of historical, cultural, and recreational resources is a

key reason visitors enjoy New England. Designation of Freedom’s

Way as a National Heritage Area will provide an economic spur to

reinvigorating our economy. The Freedom’s Way Heritage Area,

comprising 36 Massachusetts communities and six New Hampshire

communities northwest of Boston, is a region that is a host to a series of historic events that influenced democratic forms of governance and the development of intellectual traditions that underpin

American freedom, democracy, conservation, and social justice.

700,000 residents of Freedom’s Way inhabit its 889 square miles.

The area contains one dozen national historic landmarks, and well

over 100 nationally registered sites or districts. Freedom’s Way is

a grassroots 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in 1994 by citizens

and town officials with the dream of regional cooperation.

Freedom’s Way objectives include elevation of the importance of

nationally distinctive regional resources through a coordinated educational and preservation effort of mobilization of the region’s communities by assisting and supporting their local institutions, both

private and governmental, to build partnerships focused on stewardship of natural, cultural, and historical connections to the region, and engagement of the region’s populace in the understanding

and celebration of the unique heritage that affects their daily lives

through education and interpretation, protection and enhancement

of existing open spaces, cultural and historic assets including MinVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
41

uteman National Historic Park, the Great Meadows, and Oxbow

National Wildlife Refuge by maximizing intelligent land use practices on surrounding lands.

Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts and Governor Jean

Shaheen of New Hampshire have each written letters of support

for the Freedom’s Way designation bill. Our feasibility study was

conducted and underwritten by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This year’s approved Commonwealth budget includes a Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism line item for $250,000 for

Freedom’s Way that is conditioned on receiving Federal funds.

Other major commitments have been received from the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, which provides the association

with housing.

Freedom’s Way has the capacity for a unique educational experience. Without your help, that capacity will be diminished and the

educational opportunities lost. We began in 1993 with a handful of

citizens who understood how the powerful ideas emanating from

the area were inspired by our landscape. the organization grew to

garner powerful support. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

underwrote the feasibility study. We had the support of our region,

our Governors, and our elected officials. Now we are seeking your

support.

Surely, there is a renewed interest in American history, in our

beginnings, in our passages. We have an opportunity to provide

some hope and solutions for other regions. The home of the Minutemen stands for ideals about which people in the United States and

around the world have debated, disagreed, and committed their

life. The area has produced a great number of nationally renowned

visionaries and experimenters. The extraordinary tradition of conversation about man’s connection to the landscape perhaps stems

from its charm and intimacy of scale that invites reflection. It has

certainly produced words and actions that have reached far beyond

its boundaries.

In 1990, E.L. Doctorow spoke at Walden Woods about great, historic, and cultural assets in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Emphasizing how the education of an idea requires preservation of

its origin, he said, and I quote, history composes places, identifies

them, locates them in the moral universe, gives them a charged

name, makes them resound as in, you read the book, now see the

play. We have to be able to take children there to say, this is it.

This is the famous Walden the man wrote about. You see, you give

them that which is theirs, just as we give them Gettysburg so that

they can see what happened. Then it is truly meaningful.

The concept of National Heritage Area fosters education about

the story of America. Now is the time to authorize a Freedom’s

Way National Heritage Area while the institutions stand ready to

supply their experience and the sites are still there to see. Thank

you for having this hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to be

here.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitney follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN MANOIAN, MARY WHITNEY, FORMER MAYOR, CITY OF

FITCHBURG, MA, AND MARGE DARBY, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM’S WAY HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to have the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Alan Mandan, I represent the City of

Nashua and I will begin our short presentation. Mayor Mary Whitney from Fitchburg, Massachusetts will continue, and we will conclude with a statement from our

President Marge Darby.

THE FREEDOM’S WAY STORIES

The morning of April 19, 1775, Lexington Green, dozens of farmer/militiamen

mustered with the warning that the British regulars were out to destroy colonists’

military stores in Concord. Captain John Parker urged his men, ‘‘Stand your

ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin

here,’’ The militia refused to disperse when ordered to do so by the commander of

the British regulars.

The quick and collective response of the citizens to the Alarm was the result of

the seeds of emerging self-reliance and collective rights through democratic forms

of Town governance that were sown by this region’s preceding generations. April 19

is an exclamation point after 100 years of germination and cultivation of American

Democracy.

The Freedom’s Way’s stories are told within three interconnecting themes:

Shaping the Landscape of Democracy

For move than one-hundred years before the American Revolution, the New England towns shaped, reinvented and adapted a new form of governance, The Paths

of the Patriots became avenues of Intellectual exchange and social commentary.

This trail will follow sites relating to some of America’s best thinkers and writers—

and the places they immortalized. In the New World, the freedom to experiment

bred an independence of mind and nurtured the examination of accepted thought

about government, land ownership, religion, equality, and art. The so-called American Renaissance fed an evolution of thinking that continues to this day. While each

trail will illustrate the rich heritage of the region, the interconnections of the

themes and the sites that link the theme will provide an even richer picture for interpretation. Our regional museums will be key focal points for the trails.

Inventing the New England Landscape

This theme is about the ways people shaped the landscape to their usage and in

turn how the landscape shaped their society. From early trading posts grew small

villages with houses clustered together for protection and common needs These clusters included churches, inns and taverns. What we think of today as the distinctly

New England Village was born of necessity and practicality. In a different, yet also

practical way, mill villages developed on the shores of active rivers The trail will

show some of the best examples of small town centers, local architecture, farming

techniques and mill and river sites. The shift from the primary use of rivers for

transportation to commerce happened as quickly as the concurrent pollution of the

same waterways. New riverside parks and recreation areas testify to the dramatic

turn around in river health and usage. The Industrialists who built the mills provided employment for local workers. The succeeding waves of immigrants and the

stories of all their contributions are part of the cultural heritage. The ethnic communities and the wealthy philanthropists’ stories will become part of the trail that

shows the evolution of landscape use.

Rediscovering the Native Landscape

This theme is about the land: the geological events that shaped the landscape of

the Native Americans for thousands of years. It is also the story of the changes

wrought by the past 300 years and the development of a conservation movement

that includes Henry David Thoreau, Benton MacKaye, and the present day efforts

of people like Marion Stoddart and John Hansen Mitchell. The Rediscovery Trail

will include: Rail trails in Arlington, Ayer, Groton, Pepperell and New Hampshire;

Great Meadows Visitor/Education centers and trails, U.S. Fish and Wildlife lands,

Massachusetts State Reservations, Massachusetts Audubon, The Trustees of Reservations, the Nashua River Greenway & Concord/Sudbury Assabet River Greenway

lands, town conservation land trails and parks. It will link Thoreau’s walks,

MacKaye’s meanders and trails, the Mid-state trail with the stories of the conservationists and their efforts to save our scarce resources. Sites of special Native American significance will be identified by interpretive markers. Area museums with stoVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
43

ries of the landscape and/or Native American events will also be identified as part

of the trail.

* * *

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, the Freedom’s Way National

Heritage Area bill comes before you at a critical juncture.

1. Americans are seeking to re-establish their roots in the shared heritage of freedom and liberty. Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area provides a powerful vehicle for Americans to connect with the rich environment that

sparked the American Revolution, and the nationally significant ideas and works of

Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau, Alcott, and others.

2. The region just outside of Boston and stretching to central Massachusetts and

southern New Hampshire is experiencing unprecedented growth that will not be

sustainable. Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area will foster

cooperation between the public and private sectors so that growth and development

will allow the region to sustain itself and to keep its strong sense of place.

3. Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area provides an opportunity for the Minute Man National Historical Park and other stakeholders to consider the environmental and historic resources outside of park boundaries in a more

meaningful way.

4. The depth of historical, cultural, and recreational resources is a key reason visitors enjoy New England. Designation of Freedom’s Way as a National Heritage Area

will provide an economic spur to re-invigorating our economy.

The Freedom’s Way Heritage Area

The Freedom’s Way Heritage Area, comprising 36 Massachusetts communities

and 6 New Hampshire communities northwest of Boston, is a region that was host

to a series of historic events that influenced democratic forms of governance and the

development of intellectual traditions that underpin American freedom, democracy,

conservation, and social justice.

Seven hundred thousand residents of Freedom’s Way inhabit its 889 square miles.

The area contains one dozen National Historic Landmarks and well over one hundred Nationally Registered sites or districts.

Freedom’s Way Heritage Association

Freedom’s Way Heritage Association, Inc. is a grass-roots 501(c)(3) organization

incorporated in 1994 by citizens and town officials with a dream of regional cooperation.

Freedom’s Way objectives include:

1. elevation of the importance of nationally distinctive regional resources through

a coordinated educational and preservation effort;

2. mobilization of the region’s communities by assisting and supporting their local

institutions, both private and governmental, to build partnerships focused on stewardship of natural, cultural, and historic connections to the region;

3. engagement of the region’s populace in the understanding and celebration of

the unique heritage that affects their daily lives through education and interpretation;

4. protection and enhancement of existing open space; cultural and historic assets

including Minuteman National Historical Park, and the Great Meadows and Oxbow

National wildlife Refuges by maximizing intelligent land use practices on surrounding lands.

Freedom’s Way Heritage Association encourages communities to identify their

heritage and offer them assistance in the presentation of interpretative history to

the public. We have forged relationships with museums, historical societies, and

funding institutions to develop models for communities to use to present their own

local history. A focus of Freedom’s Way Heritage Association has been to craft

‘‘model’’ projects to show communities ways to interpret their own history through

theme development. Individual town histories serve as the basis for compiling a regional history. Our supplemental packet provides the Subcommittee with further

documentation of our strength and support.

U.S. National Park Service Support

National Park Service (NPS) personnel have worked collaboratively with us. The

NPS issued a policy in 1999 that enumerates ‘‘critical steps’’ and ‘‘criteria’’ for a national heritage area feasibility study. The Philadelphia Field Support Office headed

by Marie Rust has been particularly helpful in describing their criteria. Freedom’s

Way Heritage Association has created and submitted a Supplement to our original

44

Feasibility Study to the Park Service. This Supplement addresses all of the Park

Services critical steps and criteria. You will hear today how they view our submittal.

The NPS unit within Freedom’s Way, the Minuteman National Historical Park, has

been nominated for the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 11 Most Endangered Places, due to encroaching development. It is important for us all to act now

to help protect the Park.

Support of the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts and Governor Jeanne Shaheen of New

Hampshire have each written letters of support of the Freedom’s Way Designation

bills and sent them to Senator Daniel Akaka, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on

national Parks, to Representative George Radanovich, Chair of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands, and to Ms. Fran

Mainella, director of the National Park Service.

Our feasibility study was conducted and underwritten by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. This year’s approved Commonwealth of Massachusetts budget contains a Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism line item for $250,000 for Freedom’s Way that is conditioned on receiving Federal funds. Other major commitments have been received from the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency

(which provides office space to the Association and assisted in the development of

the Freedom’s Way brochure), the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, and the Department of Environmental Management.

Thank you.

Mayor Mary Whitney, City of Fitchburg

* * *

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to summarize how

much Freedom’s Way means to America.

Freedom’s Way has the capacity for a unique educational experience. Without

your help that capacity will be diminished and the educational opportunities lost.

We began in 1993, with a handful of citizens who understood how the powerful

ideas emanating from this area were inspired by our own landscape. The organization grew to garner powerful support. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

underwrote the feasibility study. We have the support of our region, our Governors

and our elected officials. Now we are seeking yours. From the place where the origins of assembly germinated into a concept of self-governance has emerged this organization committed to telling the untold parts of the American story. We are determined to succeed so that future generations will benefit from the interpretive

programs no other region could produce.

Surely, there is a renewed interest in American history, in our beginnings and

our passages. We have an opportunity to provide some hope and solutions for other

regions. The home of the Minute Man and the Transcendentalists stands for ideals

about which people in the United States and around the world have debated, disagreed, and committed their lives.

Why has the area produced such a great number of nationally renowned visionaries and experimenters? The extraordinary tradition of conversations about man’s

connection to the landscape perhaps stems from its charm and intimacy of scale that

invites reflection. It has certainly produced words and actions that have reached far

beyond its boundaries.

During the one hundred years before the American Revolution, the citizens of

Freedom’s Way came to understand the interdependency of people and nature. They

learned first-hand how social justice and environmental sustainability are inseparable concepts. And from their farms and little villages they marched to preserve

their legacy for future generations. The amazing thing is that the visual evidences

of this still exist.But they are under siege.

In 1990, E.L. Doctorow spoke at Walden Woods about great historic and cultural

assets in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Emphasizing how the education of an

idea requires preservation of its origin, he said,

‘‘history, composes places, identifies them, locates them in the moral universe,

gives them a charged name, makes them resound . . . as in ‘You read the book,

now see the place.’ We have to be able to take children there to say, ‘This is

it. This is the famous Walden, the man wrote about. You see?’ You give them

that which is theirs, just as we give them Gettysburg, so they can see where

it happened. . . . Then it is truly meaningful. . . .’’

The concept of National Heritage areas fosters education about the story of America. Now is the time to authorize a Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area, while

45

the institutions stand ready to supply their interpretive experience and the sites are

still there to see.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

Marjorie A. Darby, President, Freedom’s Way Heritage Association, Inc.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Cordova, I

have questions for you. Ms. Cordova, I would like to ask you a

question about the proposed Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. I appreciate the intent to preserve and interpret the culture of both the pueblo communities and the descendants of Spanish settlers. Please describe specific projects that would be pursued

if the heritage area is established.

Ms. CORDOVA. I think we are envisioning some interpretive sites.

Now, we will have a board of directors who will decide what goes

into these interpretive centers, and we would be changing things

as the seasons go, as the interest goes, and the people on that

board would have a say, and the way we envision it is, the people

from the community, different segments of the community would be

on that board. That way, everybody would have a voice. For example, the pueblos would have representatives, people from cultural

groups would have representatives, and they would determine

what would happen.

Say that some feasts are coming up, we may want to have some

type of exhibit on the feasts. It would be that people’s opportunity

to tell the story their way. Instead of having an outsider tell our

story, we would tell our own story. Tourism is there. We cannot

stop it, and we might as well try and manage it and make it correct.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Villa, as vice chairperson for the interim board of directors

for the proposed northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, can

you tell us about the level of community involvement in the planning process for the areas? I understand you are both here representing the steering committee also, so will you tell us about the

community involvement in the planning process?

Mr. VILLA. The mayor of Espanola called a community-wide

meeting of people from the three counties of Rio Arriba, Taos, and

Santa Fe Counties. There were 150 people that attended that particular meeting. It was up to those folks from throughout those

three counties and from rural villages and pueblos and those segments of the community.

It was that initial group of people that elected, quite frankly,

both of us and others to serve on that steering committee, with the

understanding that we would be reporting back and sharing information with members from diverse parts of the community, so our

planning process has not only involved those of us that were elected, we have reached out and have involved members of the broader

community, of the educational community, of the business community. We have made a number of presentations and have, of course,

as part of the documentation resolutions from all of the jurisdictions, the major jurisdictions, the counties, the cities, et cetera, and

it has been pretty broadbased, and it has been quite inclusive.

I do not know what to tell you except that we have made every

effort to also announce meetings and be communicative with people

that maybe belong to senior groups. I know that this has been anVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
46

nounced at some meetings I have attended in AARP and in organizations like that, so it is pretty broadbased.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Villa, for your response.

Let me ask a question of Mary Whitney. I appreciate your response. I would like to ask you a question about the proposed Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area. This proposed area covers

nearly 900 square miles.

Ms. WHITNEY. Yes, it does.

Senator AKAKA. Within which 700,000 people live. Within such

a large area, how do you tie together various historic features to

maintain a coherent sense of place?

Ms. WHITNEY. Well, I think through the publicity and the map

that we have we are trying to bring all of the towns and cities together so that we will have a designation in each one of the places

that we are going to designate along the line. The State of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire is a continuing line for

us to go from the Boston area through Concord and Lexington and

up through central Massachusetts and through to New Hampshire.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your response.

Mr. Martin, I have a two-part question for you about the proposed National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area. Please describe the

relationship between the Heritage Highway 89 Alliance, which

would manage the proposed new heritage area, and the

Panoramaland Resource Conservation Development Board of which

the alliance is a part. And in addition, according to your testimony,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture is involved with these two organizations. The question is, does the USDA provide funding or

other support for these organizations?

Mr. MARTIN. Okay, to answer the first question, Mr. Chairman,

it appears to be there is some confusion. There is actually one management nonprofit entity, the Utah Heritage Products Alliance,

which is a nonprofit organization, but in order to ensure that we

have good financial controls they have partnered with an RC&D

who reviews their financial controls to assure they are adequate

and in place. That partnership between those two entities ensures

we have nonprofit, a nonprofit board running this organization, but

we have Federal checks and balances to ensure proper accounting.

The only function that the RC&D places is to ensure proper accounting procedures over the nonprofit entity, which is part of agricultural charters for RC&D’s to assist heritage in its development.

Now, the second question was?

Senator AKAKA. Does the USDA provide funding?

Mr. MARTIN. The USDA provides only the support of ensuring

that the financial management meets those standards. However,

they will be a partner, but they partner on the projects on which

they have direct interest.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that explanation.

Ms. Clish, I appreciated your response. I have a question for you

about the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail. I would like to

refer to it as ‘‘the three M’s.’’ We have found in the past that the

success of many trails has depended on the support of local communities. What steps have you and other trail supporters taken to

work with the local landowners?

47

Ms. CLISH. I can speak mostly on behalf of the AMC, where I

mentioned that our AMC is divided up into chapters. We have a

Berkshire chapter that is entirely volunteer-run, and right now, for

the section that is the Metacomet-Monadnock trail that runs entirely through Massachusetts, it is entirely built upon good landowner relations, and with this feasibility study proposal coming forward, the discussions continue with the landowners to, for instance, emphasize the fact that this is a feasibility study, this is

not a designation right now, and they want to have included during

the feasibility study to scope out whatever issues there might be

and to scope out what alignments might be most appropriate, and

scope out what overnight facilities might be most appropriate, or

what might be most needed.

I can say that in Connecticut, where the Connecticut Forests &

Parks Association is, the organization—again, they have a small

staff, but they’re volunteer based. The organization that is responsible for the Mattabesett and Metacomet section of the trail in Connecticut, again entirely volunteer based, and the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association keeps strong relationships with their

landowners as well. I think both organizations realize that

throughout the scope of the feasibility study it is just highly important to bring the landowners along, as we have been doing since

the twenties and thirties in the case of Connecticut, and since the

fifties in the case of Massachusetts for the history of the trails.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much.

Mr. Esplin, I have a question for you about the State Museum

of Natural History. I appreciate the university’s desire to construct

a new and larger facility. A natural question is why the funding

of this new building should be a Federal responsibility, and you

have addressed this in your testimony. You state in your testimony

that the Federal Government owns much of the museum’s collection. In discussions between the museum, the university, and the

Federal Government, has the Federal Government requested the

State Museum of Natural History to care for these resources?

Mr. ESPLIN. The way that has occurred, Mr. Chairman, is that

over the years the university has been requested by the Federal

Government on a number of occasions to recover artifacts on Federal lands and to preserve them. Two examples of that would be

in the process of constructing the Glen Canyon Dam and the Flaming Gorge Dam, of course, the water that backed up behind the

dam covered a lot of sites in which there were very valuable historical artifacts, and at the request of the Federal agencies involved,

the university was involved for a great many years, in fact, recovering artifacts and preserving them, so in that respect and in other

respects the university has been responding to Federal requests to

preserve these artifacts.

As I mentioned in my testimony, three-quarters of the items in

the collection are recovered from various Federal lands.

Senator AKAKA. For us, this is a different kind of request. We

look upon this as a museum, but you have provided some good information on the relationships with the Federal Government, the

lands, and even the artifacts, and so I thank you very much for all

of that.

48

I do not have any further questions. I want to thank all of you

for coming, and thank you for your testimony. It will certainly help

us to make our decisions on these areas and parks and museums.

Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(49)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[Due to the enormous amount of materials received, only a representative sample of statements follow. Additional documents and

statements have been retained in subcommittee files.]

STATEMENT OF ANN T. COLSON, DIRECTOR OF VOLUNTEERS & TRAILS COORDINATOR, CONNECTICUT FOREST AND PARK ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am writing on behalf of the Connecticut Forest & Park Association, the private, nonprofit conservation organization

that manages the 700-mile Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System in the beautiful state

of Connecticut. Please consider the following comments in favor of S. 1609, the

Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study Act of 2001.

The Act specifies that a feasibility study be conducted for the potential addition

to the National Trails System of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail, a

system of trails and potential trails extending southward approximately 180 miles

from the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in western Massachusetts, and across central

Connecticut on the Metacomet Trail and the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island

Sound. I would like to address the Connecticut sections of this multi-state trail, and

how they are an integral part of the envisioned 180-mile New England Trail.

We have been extremely gratified by the overwhelming public response in favor

of the proposed feasibility study. Letters of support from Connecticut town officials

and land use agencies along the trail corridor, and from conservation organizations,

trail managers, hiking groups, and individual trail users, along with the endorsement of Connecticut’s esteemed U.S. Senators and Representatives, are all testimony to the support of S. 1609.

The Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA), founded in 1895, established

the first four of the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails in 1929, including the Metacomet

Trail, which traverses the magnificent traprock ridges in the north central part of

Connecticut. In 1932 the Mattabesett Trail was added, following the ridgeline south

to Bluff Head in north Guilford, almost to the shores of Long Island Sound.

When setting up the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System, the founding fathers also

recognized the need for continuing trail maintenance and therefore established a

corps of volunteers who would oversee the trails. In 1929 there were 250 miles of

Blue-Blazed Trails. Today there are more than 700 miles. This growth could not

have been sustained without the dedication of a veritable army of CFPA volunteers

who build, manage, and maintain the trails throughout the year. Twelve trail managers are assigned to the combined 108 miles of the Mattabesett and Metacomet

Trails, which are also overseen by the CFPA Trails Committee and supported by

CFPA professional staff.

These two trails pass through the state’s most diverse landscapes, from densely

populated urban centers to cool, forested woodlands, streams and ponds, past picturesque agricultural fields, and atop sheer cliff faces offering sweeping views across

Connecticut’s central valley. On a clear day, hikers on the Metacomet Trail can see

Long Island Sound to the south, and Mt. Tom in Massachusetts to the north. From

Bluff Head, the 360-degree viewshed includes the distant city buildings of Hartford,

our capital city, and the shimmering blue expanse of Long Island Sound where it

meets Connecticut’s southern coast.

Unsurpassed beauty is not all that awaits the curious observer who hikes on these

trails. Fragments of Connecticut’s history can be found amongst the oaks and sugar

maples and white pines—forgotten cemeteries, tracks of former stagecoach routes,

caves used by ancient Native American tribal councils, abandoned quarries, old cellar holes, and meandering rock walls. Off the Mattabesett Trail is a burial site,

marked only by a circle of large stones, where the remains of smallpox victims were

laid to rest. Further north, along the Metacomet Trail, a side trail brings hikers to

50

‘‘Hospital Rock,’’ which bears the 1792 inscriptions of 66 smallpox patients. On June

5, 2002, this site was named to the state’s Register of Historic Places by the Connecticut Historical Commission, and is being considered for a State Historic Preserve.

Scattered through the landscape are remnants of the charcoal mounds built by

19th century colliers who supplied charcoal for the state’s once-thriving iron industry. The legacy of our nation’s Civilian Conservation Corps remains in the bridges,

dams, ponds, and lookout towers they constructed during the depression era of the

1930s, many of which are accessible along the trails. Hikers on the Metacomet Trail

in Farmington can explore Will Warren’s Den, a cave of huge jumbled rocks where

Warren was hidden by Indians after he was flogged for not attending church and

subsequently attempted to burn down the village of Farmington.

The trail corridors also harbor relatively undisturbed unique natural areas that

provide critical habitat for a diverse range of animal and plant species. The

Mattabesett Trail, for example, follows the ridge of Lamentation Mountain, which

has occurrences of red cedar ledges, subacidic cliffs, subacidic talus, and subacidic

talus forest/woodland, documented natural communities with limited examples within Connecticut that are closely tracked by the Natural Diversity Database of the

Natural Resources Center, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

These natural communities are typical of those found on Connecticut’s traprock

ridge system, the 75-mile spine that is the framework for much of the Mattabesett

Trail and the Metacomet Trail. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Lamentation Mountain and the traprock ridge system is the presence of two state threatened plant species.

Today, the trails themselves are threatened.

In the early- to mid-20th Century, permission to establish these footpaths was

granted on the strength of a handshake by the farmers and woodlot owners whose

land the trails crossed. Today, fully 75% of the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails System

lies on private or quasi-public land, with only 25% of the trails located on stateowned lands. Those sections of trail that are on privately held property exist only

through the kind permission of the landowner. Few, if any, legal agreements are

in place. The heightened economy of recent years has encouraged explosive development, often on lands that were once considered marginal, such as the ridgetops. As

development pressure increases, so does the very real threat of being unable to retain the trails’ continuity and integrity for future generations to enjoy.

In 1999, CFPA launched a comprehensive trails protection program aimed at providing permanent protection for the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System. The

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails are the initial focus of this important initiative,

which involves working in partnership with all stakeholders along the trail corridors. Stakeholders include individual and corporate property owners, trail managers, local land trusts, municipal governing boards and land use agencies, regional

planning agencies, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,

which has jurisdiction over the state’s public forests and parks.

Our own research and trail protection efforts during the past three years speak

loudly to the need for S. 1609, the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail Study

Act of 2001. I urge your support for S. 1609.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Concord, NH, May 28, 2002.

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA,

Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington,

DC.

DEAR SENATOR AKAKA: I am writing in support of the Federal designation of the

Freedom’s Way Heritage Area as a National Heritage Area. Passage of the two bills

before Congress, H.R. 1027 and S. 1925, will result in the establishment of the Freedom’s Way. National Heritage Area in the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

New Hampshire and Massachusetts share a rich common history and tradition,

first through the Algonkian speaking Native Americans, and later through Bay Colony Puritan settlers. I am particularly proud of the contributions of our six New

Hampshire communities toward the Freedom’s Way unique heritage of people,

places, and ideas.

As part of a National Heritage Area, these New Hampshire communities will be

encouraged to identify those natural, cultural, and historic resources that are the

foundation of their sense of place, helping them to preserve their special character

51

into the future. Tourism is New Hampshire’s second largest industry, and designation of the Freedom’s Way Heritage Area will enhance and support our efforts as

a state to attract ‘‘high value added tourism.’’

The representatives of the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association, Inc. can provide

detailed information on how they meet all established National Heritage Area designation criteria and any other information you may need.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

JEANNE SHAHEEN,

Governor.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,

Boston, MA, May 26, 2002.

Hon. DANIEL AKAKA,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA: Thank you for allowing me to present my position on

H.R. 1027/S. 1925 to your subcommittee. This bill would establish the Freedom’s

Way National Heritage Area within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the

State of New Hampshire, and my Administration fully supports this federal designation.

I am well acquainted with the effort of the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association’s

accomplishments in promoting the natural, historical and cultural resources prevalent in this particular region of the Commonwealth. These resources provide wonderful opportunities for recreation, environmental education and heritage preservation. A feasibility study, largely funded by the Commonwealth, highlighted these resources and provided representatives of the Freedom’s Way Heritage Association the

ability to share detailed information about their specific vision, goals and accomplishments.

In addition to the preservation of these resources, heritage development will provide an economic spur to the region and the Commonwealth. Tourism is Massachusetts’ third largest industry, and our depth of historical, cultural and recreational

resources is a key reason visitors come to Massachusetts. Freedom’s Way will play

an important role as a vehicle for all Americans to connect with our shared heritage

and sense of place.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has committed to financially support this

initiative conditional upon federal designation and funding. Therefore, I urge you

and your subcommittee to pass H.R. 1027/S. 1925.

Sincerely,

JANE M. SWIFT,

Governor.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. LARSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CONNECTICUT

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

As the sponsor of the House version of the Coltsville Study Act, I thank the Committee for allowing me to speak this afternoon on an issue of importance to my constituents and to the historic preservation of an important American landmark of

achievement. I would also like to commend my two delegation colleagues, Senator

Dodd and Senator Lieberman, for their leadership on this issue.

The history of Coltsville is a history of industry in central Connecticut, beginning

with Samuel and Elizabeth Colt, then Pope manufacturing’s production of bicycles

and automobiles, and finally blooming into what we now know as Pratt and Whitney in East Hartford. It is a unique regional and international landmark.

Hartford, Connecticut, the home to Colt manufacturing, played a major role in the

Industrial Revolution, and when you look deeper at the area one begins to see the

unique and holistic community that developed in the area and brought other early

industrial leaders like Henry Ford to Coltsville to learn the innovative manufacturing techniques and equipment being invented and developed in the area.

In fact, Samuel Colt, founder of Colt manufacturing, and his wife, Elizabeth Colt,

inspired Coltsville, a whole community that inspired and flourished during the Industrial Revolution and included Victorian mansions, an open green area, botanical

gardens, and even a deer park.

52

The actual residence of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt in Hartford, Connecticut,

known as ‘‘Armsmear’’, is a national historic landmark, and the distinctive Colt factory’s blue dome is a prominent feature of the Hartford, Connecticut, skyline.

It is important to emphasize here that the Colt legacy is not just about firearms,

but also about industrial innovation and the development of technology that would

change the way of life in the United States. Mr. Colt worked with Samuel Morse

in the development of the telegraph, and Colt manufacturing contributed to the development of technology in many ways, inspiring the jet engine pioneers Francis

Pratt and Amos Whitney, who served as apprentices at Colt manufacturing. The influence of the community was extended overseas when Samuel Colt became the first

individual in the United States to open a manufacturing plant overseas.

Coltsville set the standard for excellence during the Industrial Revolution and

continues to prove significant as a place in which people of the United States can

learn about that important period in history and its association with the Mark

Twain House, Trinity College, Old North Cemetery, and many historic homesteads

and architecturally renowned buildings.

This legislation and its overwhelming local support and excitement signifies that

we are starting on the road to developing and cultivating Coltsville’s history and its

importance to Hartford and the State of Connecticut. Along with other members of

the delegation and the community, I am committed to preserving the area’s immeasurable historical value, and appreciate the Committee’s consideration of this proposal.

June 17, 2002.

Mr. BRUCE CRAIG,

Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History.

The Reconstruction History Partnership in South Carolina writes to support passage of S. 2388, legislation that directs the Secretary of the Interior to study certain

sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the Reconstruction Era to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating the study area as a

unit of the National Park System.

In January 2001, the Reconstruction History Partnership, composed of the Penn

Center, University of South Carolina Beaufort, City of Beaufort, Town of Hilton

Head Island, and Beaufort County, officially adopted a ‘‘Mission Statement’’ affirming the partnerships intent to provide a cooperative framework to assist its citizens,

institutions, and visitors in retaining, enhancing and interpreting the significant

history and places of the Reconstruction era. The eminent Reconstruction scholar

Eric Foner has encouraged us and has stated on a number of occasions that the best

place in the United States to interpret the Reconstruction era is in the Beaufort

area. The Reconstruction History Partnership has met regularly for over eighteen

months and has received a grant from the South Carolina State Humanities Council

to assist in developing an inventory of historic resources, to develop educational materials, and to hold a series of public forums. The Partnership has worked to gain

the support of the board community and has received letters of support from: County Council of Beaufort County, City of Beaufort, Town of Hilton Head Island, University of South Carolina Beaufort, Penn Center, Institute for Southern Studies of

the University of South Carolina, Historic Beaufort Foundation, Chamber of Commerce of Hilton Head Island, Coastal Discovery Museum on Hilton Head Island,

Greater Beaufort Chamber of Commerce, Greater Beaufort-Hilton Head Economic

Development Partnership, Inc., Lowcountry and Resort Islands Tourism Commission, Main Street Beaufort, USA, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation

and Tourism. There is a broad consensus locally and nationally that Beaufort County retains significant historical and archeological sites associated with Reconstruction. These include: the Penn School for former slaves founded in 1862 and located

on St. Helena Island: the Old Fort Plantation, on the Beaufort River on the grounds

of the United States Naval Hospital, where the first African-Americans assembled

on January 1, 1863 to hear the reading of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation which set them free; the Freedmen’s Bureau housed in the recently restored

Beaufort College; the Beaufort Arsenal where free slaves in Beaufort voted for the

first time; the first Freedmen’s Village of Mitchelville on Hilton Head Island; and

many noteworthy historic buildings and archeological sites associated with the Civil

War hero and Reconstruction leader, Robert Smalls.

There are certainly other places in the United States where events central to Reconstruction took place. However, there is no other place in the United States that

offers the potential for interpreting so many varied components of the ReconstrucVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 Jan 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\84-255 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
53

tion experience. The Reconstruction History Partnership has identified four themes

that can ably be developed with the historic resources in the Beaufort area. These

reconstruction themes are: the beginning of reconstruction in America; the political

revolution and accompanying conflict; the social, economic, and demographic transformation; and education for all.

Since the National Park Service has no current unit that is specifically focused

on interpreting this important period that shaped modern America, we are most

hopeful that S. 2388 will receive your support. I chair the local partnership committee on Reconstruction that has been meeting for over a year. Please contact me at

myanker@gwm.sc.edu or 843-521-4141 (phone), 843-521-4172 (fax) if you need any

additional information from our group.

Sincerely,

MARGE YANKER, ED.D.

Assistant Dean University Partnerships.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION

OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, AND THE NATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE

PROMOTION OF HISTORY

Collectively, the American Historical Association, the Organization of American

Historians, and the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History

wishes to express our support and urge the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, to enact S. 2388, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a special resource study on the feasibility and suitability of establishing a new unit of the National Park System in Beaufort, South

Carolina as a focal point for preserving and interpreting the Reconstruction Era.

The National Park Service has approximately thirty historic sites that interpret

the Civil War; however, there are none in the National Park System that are devoted primarily to Reconstruction. Reconstruction marks one of the significant turning points in American history; it was the time when the country made adjustments

for the transition from slavery to freedom for a large number of African Americans.

New economic, political, social, and education institutions also emerged in this period.

We see the area of Beaufort, South Carolina, as an ideal place to interpret the

Reconstruction Era. It is here that the initial experiment with Reconstruction occurred when Union troops began occupation of this area at the end of 1861. In 1862,

several philanthropic and missionary organizations started to send teachers from

the North to Beaufort and to the Sea Islands to undertake a massive education program for liberated slaves. At the same time, the federal government initiated programs in the Beaufort area to help prepare the ex-slaves to become free citizens in

American public life. These combined efforts have been called the Port Royal Experiment.

Beaufort County retains significant historical and archeological sites associated

with Reconstruction. Two National Historic Landmark Districts are in this vicinity—the campus of the Penn School for former slaves (founded in 1862 and located

on St. Helena Island), and the historic town of Beaufort where many of Reconstruction policies evolved and were first implemented.Here, one finds the recently restored Beaufort College where the Freedmen’s Bureau was housed and the Beaufort

Arsenal where freed slaves in Beaufort voted for the first time. Additionally there

is a very significant National Register of Historic Places listed site—Camp Saxton

at the Old Fort Plantation on the Beaufort River—where the first African-Americans in the country assembled on January 1, 1863 to hear the reading of Abraham

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation which set them free. An estimated 5,000 people gathered for the three-hour ceremony and full-day celebration. Colonel Thomas

Wentworth Higginson of the newly-organized infantry of African American soldiers

wrote in his diary that the January 1 events ‘‘So ended one of the most enthusiastic

and happy gatherings I ever knew.’’ Other historic resources of note are the first

Freedmen’s Village of Mitchellville on Hilton Head Island, as well as many buildings and archeological sites associated with the Civil War hero and Reconstruction

leader, Robert Smalls.

The programs that emerged out of the Beaufort experience surfaced elsewhere as

America’s Reconstruction policies developed and evolved.But Beaufort (location of

the Port Royal experiment) was unique because it was the first and most highly

publicized of these ‘‘rehearsals for Reconstruction.’’ It was also unique because it

took place in a much more compact setting than occupied Louisiana or the Mississippi Valley, and because it was a grassroots effort by ex-slaves and their northern allies to develop a vision of American freedom. While northern schoolteachers,

54

missionaries, and philanthropic entrepreneurs streamed into Beaufort, military officials were the dominant decision-makers in occupied Louisiana and the Mississippi

Valley and implemented more centrally designed policies, which were constrained

by larger resisting populations. As a result, these other locations established important precedents for postwar labor relations and political alignments, but none match

the range of innovative ideas that kept Beaufort at the forefront of national attention. For example, the Beaufort area’s educational initiatives and the programs of

job training and land distribution make it a compelling aspect of the Reconstruction

story.

For many years our professional historical organizations have worked closely with

the National Park Service in providing input and advice on the planning and management of historic sites including many potential new national park areas. Since

the National Park Service has no unit that focuses primarily on interpreting the Reconstruction Era, we believe that S. 2388 addresses a glaring gap in the National

Park System and merits your strong support.

STATEMENT OF ERIC FONER, DEWITT CLINTON PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

I write to support S. 2388, the National Reconstruction Study Act of 2002; a bill

to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a special resource study on the

feasibility and suitability of establishing a new unit of the National Park Service

in the Beaufort, South Carolina area to interpret the Reconstruction Era. I have

spent much of my scholarly career researching and writing about Reconstruction.

My book, ‘‘Reconstruction America’s Unfinished Revolution’’ (1988), was awarded

the Bancroft Prize, Los Angeles Times Book Prize, and several other awards. I am

convinced that the best location for telling the story of this pivotal era in American

history is in the area of Beaufort, South Carolina.

Reconstruction, the era that following the American Civil War, is one of the least

understood periods in American history. An accurate understanding of Reconstruction. based on the best recent scholarship, is essential to Americans’ understanding

of the history of race relations in the United States as well as of the enduring impact of the Civil War. Reconstruction was the period when, for the first time, the

principle of equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, was written

into our laws and Constitution. It was the first time that African-Americans in significant numbers were allowed to participate in American democracy. The period

also laid the foundation for the modern black community, with schools, churches,

and families no longer subject to disruption as under slavery. For white Americans,

too, it was a time of dramatic change.

The Beaufort area is the most appropriate site for a Reconstruction unit. Because

it saw little fighting during the Civil War, many buildings of historical importance

remain intact. The area contains the homes of several prominent Reconstruction-era

leaders, plantations where the transition from slave to free labor took place, and the

Penn School, established by northern aid societies to teach and assist the former

slaves. The Beaufort area was the home before the war of one of the most prominent

parts of the planter class.It witnessed some of the pivotal events of the Reconstruction period—the early arming of black soldiers, an experiment in emancipation during the Civil War, the election of one of the era’s black Congressmen (Robert

Smalls). All Americans would benefit from the establishment of a National Park site

that would preserve historic sites in this important place, and make available an

up-to-date understanding of the role of Reconstruction in American history.

EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL, INC.,

San Juan Pueblo, NM, June 19, 2002.

On behalf of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council (ENIPC) comprised of the

Northern New Mexico Pueblo Tribes of Taos, Picuris, San Juan, Santa Clara, San

Ildefonso, Nambe, Pojoaque and Tesuque, we are providing the following comments

regarding proposed legislation to establish and identify Northern New Mexico communities as part of the National Heritage designation process.

The ENIPC is in support of designating some portions of Northern New Mexico

communities as National Heritage center sites. All of our Tribal communities have

centuries of history both prior to European settlement and as part of the historical

European development. As an example, San Juan Pueblo was established as the

first New World capital in North America. Our Pueblo tribal communities can relate

to thousands of years of history in the area as evidenced by the rich archeological

sites.

55

The ENIPC is strongly advocating that authorizing legislation identify provisions

to establish authority for a tribal appropriations set-aside to allow Indian communities in Northern New Mexico to request funding for sites on tribal Indian reservations which may qualify as heritage designated sites.

The ENIPC will collaborate with communities who want to become a part of the

National Heritage designation process, however, as sovereign tribal governments,

the Northern Pueblo Tribes adamantly oppose any process which will not result in

direct participation on a government-to-government basis. The ENIPC will support

meaningful participation through the designation of eight representatives on any

board, commissions, committees, etc., that may be established for community input.

Direct communication with and between the Northern Pueblo Tribes and federal

agencies should not be discounted and should be strengthened.

Finally, the ENIPC will not compromise on religious or culturally significant sites.

These sites are sacred and shall not be a part of the designation process. Currently,

statutes are in place to protect these sites and should not be an issue.

PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN,

San Juan Pueblo, NM, June 19, 2002.

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN,

U.S. Senate, Santa Fe, NM.

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: Let this letter serve as an official letter from the Pueblo of San Juan, with regards to the ‘‘Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area’’.

As per my remarks made on Friday, May 31, 2002 at the Palace of the Governors

in Santa Fe, The Pueblo of San Juan fully supports the Idea and the Concept of

a National Heritage Area in Northern New Mexico however, our concerns are that

on the Board of Directors that is currently in place to oversee this project presently

does not have any Pueblos on this Board. The Board is moving at a pace where we

the Pueblos are not and have not been fully informed nor made aware and so the

Board and the other communities are further ahead of us Pueblos.

Someone needs to take the lead role to get everyone on board with this project

and not leave anyone behind for we are all friends and neighbors and we need to

be supportive of each others and so all of northern New Mexico should benefit from

this National Heritage Project. Again, we support the concept We need to be more

informed and to also be accepted as a team member throughout the project so it

can fully be beneficial to us all in northern New Mexico.

Senator, I wish to thank you on behalf of our Tribal Council and our People of

the Pueblo of San Juan. Should you have any questions and/or need further information please feel free to call my office at (505) 852-4400/4210.

Respectfully submitted,

WILFRED GARCIA,

Governor.

Douglas, WY.

I just wanted to let you know I am very against the Martin’s Cove transfer! As

a Wyoming resident, I don’t see a need for this and believe most of the time and

money spent on this project has been a waste. Many people have said this is a Mormon Church issue but I see it as just a Church issue. I don’t believe that any church

should be given federal (or state) land. If this was land that was being sold and any

party wished to bid on it then maybe it could be considered. The two past legislation’s concerning federal land where churches were given title was more of a cleaning up of title issues where the churches in question already had title but it was

not a totally clear title. Just because one group believes that some land is ‘‘holy’’

does not give them right to have the land. There are many places that can be

thought of as ‘‘holy’’ or special land around the world to any number of groups. I

don’t believe that that land would be handed over to a group just because. I understand that this issue will be given careful consideration but please don’t set a precedent that could have far reaching negative consequences in the future.

Thanks for reading this.

LIZ BATTON.

56

Casper, WY.

Gentlemen and Ladies, I am a fourth generation pioneer stock from Wyoming. I

spent many summers with my dad camping and enjoying the land around the

Sweetwater and Martin’s Cove. Does the Mormon Church think that they are the

only ones who have a vested interest in this site? Also, as a former elected official

myself, I would have NEVER dreamed of voting for an issue in which I had such

a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST, let alone SPONSOR THE BILL. Also, may I remind you of the Separation of Church and State; Public lands to Private Groups,

etc. It doesn’t matter how much money they want to invest in the area, that is NOT

relative to the issue. Please do not approve of this blatant land grab.

SANDRA LARIMORE.

Æ