U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71-154 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

HEARING ON H.R. 146, H.R. 182,

AND H.R. 601

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 13, 2001

Serial No. 107-4

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

VACANCY

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on March 13, 2001 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delegate to Congress from the Virgin

Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601 ........ 70

Corzine, Hon. Jon S., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey,

Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ...................................... 12

Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601 ................... 12

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr. a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey, Prepared statement on H.R. 146 ....................................... 71

Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement on H.R. 146 ............................................................. 16

Simmons, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut .................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 182 ............................................................. 19

Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 182 ........................................ 20

Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 73

Prepared statement on H.R. 601 ............................................................. 74

Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 601 ........................................ 133

Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey,

Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ...................................... 13

Statement of Witnesses:

Clower, Don, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Meridian, ID .................. 78

Prepared statement on H.R. 601 ............................................................. 79

DiIanni Pat, President, Vision 20/20, Hawthorne, NJ .................................. 99

Prepared statement on H.R.146 ............................................................... 100

Doddridge, Joseph E., Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife

and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ......................... 81

Prepared statement on H.R. 146 ............................................................. 83

Prepared statement on H.R. 182 ............................................................. 85

Prepared statement on H.R. 601 ............................................................. 85

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 157

Dopirak Anna-Lisa, Director, Community Development for the City of

Paterson, Paterson, NJ ................................................................................. 94

Prepared statement on H.R. 146 ............................................................. 97

Fisher, Jack W., Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nampa, ID ............................... 75

Prepared statement on H.R. 601 ............................................................. 77

Frohling Nathan M., Program Director, The Nature Conservancy, Middletown, CT ........................................................................................................ 102

Prepared statement on H.R. 182 ............................................................. 104

Merrow, Susan, First Selectman, Town of East Haddam, Connecticut ....... 116

Prepared statement on H.R. 182 ............................................................. 117

Additional materials supplied:

DiFrancesco, Hon. Donald T., Acting Governor, State of New Jersey,

Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ............................................. 139

Fennell, Rosalyn J., and Chandler, William J., Letter on H.R. 601

submitted for the record by The Wilderness Society ................................. 145

Filippone, Dr. Ella F., Executive Administrator, Passaic River Coalition,

Basking Ridge, NJ, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ..... 140

Page

IV

Additional materials supplied—Continued

Goldsmith, Bhanu, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for the record by The

Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. .......................................................................... 147

Kubofcik, Hon. William, Resolution on H.R. 146 submitted for the record

by The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. ............................................................. 148

Mallik, Arjun, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. .................................................................................... 149

Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders Resolution on H.R. 146

submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. ................... 150

Pou, Assemblywoman Nellie, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for the

record ............................................................................................................. 155

Smyk, Edward A., Passaic County Historian, Paterson, NJ, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ......................................................... 128

Sunday, Nick, Director, The Alexander Hamilton National Memorial,

New York, NY, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 146 ................... 142

Text of H.R. 146 ............................................................................................... 3

Text of H.R. 182 ............................................................................................... 6

Text of H.R. 601 ............................................................................................... 9

(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 146, TO AUTHORIZE THE

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY

THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF

DESIGNATING THE GREAT FALLS HISTORIC

DISTRICT IN PATERSON, NEW JERSEY, AS A

UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 182, TO

AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

TO DESIGNATE A SEGMENT OF THE

EIGHTMILE RIVER IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL

ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL WILD AND

SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES; AND H.R. 601, TO ENSURE THE

CONTINUED ACCESS OF HUNTERS TO

THOSE FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CRATERS OF

THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE

STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 7373 OF NOVEMBER 9, 2000, AND TO CONTINUE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TAYLOR GRAZING ACT TO

THE DISPOSITION OF GRAZING FEES ARISING FROM THE USE OF SUCH LANDS, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Tuesday, March 13, 2001

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

2

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 1324

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley [Chairman of

the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

The committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome

to the hearing today. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on

three bills, H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601.

H.R. 146 was introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell of New

Jersey. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls

Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National

Park System.

H.R. 182 was introduced by Congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut. This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to

designate a segment of Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut

for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System.

Lastly, H.R. 601 was introduced by Congressman Mike Simpson

of Idaho. This bill would ensure that hunters enjoy continued access to Federal lands included within the expanded boundaries of

the Craters of the Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho.

Last November, the Clinton Administration expanded the monument through a Presidential proclamation from 54,000 acres to add

an additional 661,000 acres. The effect of the Administration’s action was to close approximately 410,000 acres to hunting.

This bill would reopen the closed areas to hunting. The bill

would also provide that the Taylor Grazing Act would control the

manner in which grazing fees arising from the use of the land

within the expanded boundaries of the monument are distributed.

[The texts of H.R. 146, H.R. 182, and H.R. 601 follow:]

3

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 146

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New

Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of

the National Park System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Falls Historic

5 District Study Act of 2001’’.

4

2

•HR 146 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING

2 GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT,

3 PATERSON, NEW JERSEY.

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

5 (1) GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT.—The

6 term ‘‘Great Falls Historic District’’ means the

7 Great Falls Historic District in the city of Paterson,

8 New Jersey, established as an historic district by

9 section 510 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

10 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333;

11 110 Stat. 4158; 16 U.S.C. 461 note).

12 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

13 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di14 rector of the National Park Service.

15 (b) STUDY.—As soon as practicable after funds are

16 made available to carry out this section, the Secretary

17 shall commence a study regarding the suitability and feasi18 bility of further recognizing the historic and cultural sig19 nificance of the lands and structures of the Great Falls

20 Historic District through the designation of the Great

21 Falls Historic District as a unit of the National Park Sys22 tem.

23 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section

24 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall

25 apply to the study required by this section.

5

3

•HR 146 IH

1 (d) SUBMISSION.—The Secretary shall submit to the

2 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives

3 and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of

4 the Senate a report describing the results the study.

5 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

6 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec7 essary to carry out this section.

Æ

6

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 182

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the

Eight Mile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential

addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SIMMONS (for himself, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. SHAYS, Mr.

LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, and Ms.

DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate

a segment of the Eight Mile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eight Mile River Wild

5 and Scenic River Study Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—

7

2

•HR 182 IH

1 (1) the Eight Mile River in the State of Con2 necticut possesses important resource values, includ3 ing wildlife, ecological, and scenic values, and his4 toric sites and a cultural past important to Amer5 ica’s heritage;

6 (2) there is strong support among State and

7 local officials, area residents, and river users for a

8 cooperative wild and scenic river study of the area;

9 and

10 (3) there is a longstanding interest among

11 State and local officials, area residents, and river

12 users in undertaking a concerted cooperative effort

13 to manage the river in a productive and meaningful

14 way.

15 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

16 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

17 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing new paragraph:

19 ‘‘(138) EIGHT MILE RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—The

20 segment from its headwaters downstream to its confluence

21 with the Connecticut River.’’.

22 ‘‘(18) The study of the Eight Mile River, Con23 necticut, named in paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall

24 be completed by the Secretary of the Interior and the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Jun 12, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 71154.TXTNEW HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
8

3

•HR 182 IH

1 port thereon submitted to Congress not later than 3 years

2 after the date of the enactment of this paragraph.’’.

3 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

5 as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ

9

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 601

To ensure the continued access of hunters to those Federal lands included

within the boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National Monument

in the State of Idaho pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 of

November 9, 2000, and to continue the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act to the disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of such

lands, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 2001

Mr. SIMPSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To ensure the continued access of hunters to those Federal

lands included within the boundaries of the Craters of

the Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho

pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November

9, 2000, and to continue the applicability of the Taylor

Grazing Act to the disposition of grazing fees arising

from the use of such lands, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

10

2

•HR 601 IH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR

2 FEDERAL LANDS RECENTLY ADDED TO CRA3 TERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT,

4 IDAHO.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

6 (1) Presidential Proclamation 7373 of Novem7 ber 9, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 69221), expanded the

8 boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National

9 Monument in the State of Idaho to include approxi10 mately 661,287 additional acres of Federal lands

11 and interests in lands (in this section referred to as

12 the ‘‘expansion area’’).

13 (2) Before the inclusion of the expansion area

14 in the national monument, these Federal lands were

15 open to hunting consistent with the laws of the State

16 of Idaho and grazing consistent with the Act of June

17 28, 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.; commonly known

18 as the Taylor Grazing Act).

19 (3) The proclamation contained the expressed

20 intent to neither enlarge nor diminish the jurisdic21 tion of the State of Idaho with respect to fish and

22 wildlife management in the expansion area and stat23 ed that the laws, regulations, and policies followed

24 by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and

25 administering grazing permits or leases on lands

26 under its jurisdiction would continue to apply.

11

3

•HR 601 IH

1 (4) However, the proclamation also gave the

2 National Park Service primary management author3 ity over a portion of the expansion area under the

4 same laws and regulations that applied to the na5 tional monument before November 9, 2000, and

6 these laws and regulations prohibit hunting and

7 raise concerns regarding the future disposition of

8 grazing fees arising from the use of the expansion

9 area.

10 (b) CONTINUED ACCESS FOR HUNTING.—Those por11 tions of the expansion area that were open for hunting

12 before the issuance of Presidential Proclamation 7373 of

13 November 9, 2000, shall remain open to hunting under

14 the jurisdiction and laws of the State of Idaho notwith15 standing the addition of the expansion area to the Craters

16 of the Moon National Monument.

17 (c) DISPOSITION OF GRAZING FEES.—The Act of

18 June 28, 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.; commonly known

19 as the Taylor Grazing Act), shall continue to apply to the

20 disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of the ex21 pansion area notwithstanding the addition of the expan22 sion area to the Craters of the Moon National Monument.

Æ

12

Mr. HEFLEY. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being

here today to testify on these bills, and since I have no ranking

member, we are going to go directly to the first panel.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, on H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and

H.R. 601

Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony on

three bills H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601.

H.R. 146 was introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. This bill

would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility

of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit

of the National Park System.

H.R. 182 was introduced by Congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut. This bill

would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the

Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Last, H.R. 601 was introduced by Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho. This bill

would ensure that hunters enjoy continued access to Federal lands included within

the expanded boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in the

State of Idaho. Last November, the Clinton Administration expanded the monument

through a Presidential Proclamation from 54,000 acres to add an additional 661,000

acres. The effect of the Administration’s action was to close approximately 410,000

acres to hunting. This bill would reopen the closed areas to hunting. The bill would

also provide that the Taylor Grazing Act would control the manner in which grazing

fees arising from the use of the land within the expanded boundaries of the monument are distributed.

I’d like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify on these bills

and now turn the time remaining over to the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen.

[The prepared statements of Senator Corzine and Senator

Torricelli follow:]

Statement of The Honorable Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator, State of New

Jersey on H.R. 146

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony in support of this bill, which authorizes the National Park Service to assess the potential

for incorporating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit

of our National Park System. I am a co-sponsor of the Act with Senator Robert

Torricelli in the Senate and Congressman Bill Pascrell in the House. Please enter

this testimony into the record.

In 1976, when Congress designated the Great Falls area as a National Historic

District, it recognized Paterson’s singular history as the cradle of American industry

and invention. Planned by Alexander Hamilton, Paterson has played a unique role

in the story of working people in this country. American industry and American

labor are rooted here. This is the home of technological and social innovation in the

United States, and this legislation will determine the best way to create living history out of this special resource.

The study we are requesting is a logical extension of the commitment Congress

has already made to restoring the Great Falls and making it accessible to all our

citizens. It builds on the 1976 designation and the Federal Urban History Initiative

(UHI) that my predecessor, Senator Frank Lautenberg, authored in 1991.

The City of Paterson and the National Park Service have a long history of working together to implement the kind of restoration, envisioned in those earlier initiatives, that will let history live on in our generation and the generations to follow.

I am confident your Committee will concur that authorization of the Great Falls

Historic District Study Act of 2001 is essential to enhancing the heritage that built

our country and sustains it to this day.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony.

13

Statement of The Honorable Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator, State of

New Jersey, on H.R. 146

Thank you Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the Resources Committee (Committee) for the opportunity to testify before the Committee

on H.R. 146, legislation introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell to authorize the

Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the

Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park

System (NPS).

I have introduced similar legislation in the Senate, with my colleague from New

Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and am seeking hearings on my bill, S. 386. These important

bills recognize the historical significance of the Great Falls area in Paterson, New

Jersey, and I am hopeful that our colleagues in both chambers join us in support

of this effort.

Paterson is known as America’s first industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton

founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public partnership, using the

powerful falls to power industry. He built a laboratory, and established the Society

for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles

industry. Textiles were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once

known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile industry for many

years.

New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed to the growth

of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis Island, settled in Paterson,

and provided the workforce necessary for this newly industrialized city to thrive.

Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with natural beauty.

The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of urban development. The Great

Falls is the second largest waterfall on the East Coast, and attracts visitors from

within and outside of New Jersey.

Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey’s children.

Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution, and the pioneers who helped build our

nation.

This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I feel it is

only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by establishing

the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the National Park System (NPS).

The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of Great

Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark. Establishing it as a unit

of the NPS would increase the presence of Great Falls, and the NPS would provide

staff and tours, and allow for a better, more educational interpretation of the site.

This designation is warranted. Our nation’s urban history is currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story of the growth of our nation and

its economy from that of agrarian to industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts,

a one-time industrial powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national

park, I am not aware of another NPS site which represents our nation’s early rich

urban history.

Congressman Pascrell’s legislation would take the first step toward this important

designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of establishing a national

park at the Paterson Great Falls area. I wholly endorse this initiative, and look forward to the consideration of H.R. 146 in the Senate. This legislation is necessary

so that a critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to future generations.

Mr. HEFLEY. The first panel is made up of The Honorable Rob

Simmons, Second District of Connecticut, and The Honorable Bill

Pascrell, Jr., the Eighth District of New Jersey. Have you all

flipped a coin or decided who would like to go first?

Mr. PASCRELL. I will lead off, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Bill, you take it from there.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL PASCRELL, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

JERSEY

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us

the opportunity to testify here today. H.R. 146 calls for a study of

14

the Great Falls National Historic District, in my district and in my

hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, to determine the feasibility of

adding Paterson, the historic district, to the National Park System.

There is no dispute that the Great Falls Historic District possesses

an historic significance that makes it an area to be preserved and

treasured. The history is rich.

Alexander Hamilton realized the incredible beauty and potential

of the Great Falls when he founded Paterson in 1792. As America’s

first planned industrial city, it is our duty to ensure its preservation for generations to come. As we revisit Alexander Hamilton,

Mr. Chairman, we see a very different Hamilton than we learned

perhaps in our schools. The greatness of this man is yet not discovered.

Already tourists pour into this area to see the 77-foot Great Falls

of the Passaic River and to partake in the preserved history; 20,000

yearly visitors have attended the Paterson Museum, which is in the

district. The falls and the surrounding neighborhood really represent the genesis of the American economic miracle. Increasing

the presence of the National Park Service will give the area the attention and resources it really deserves.

As a key to our manufacturing roots, these mills that sit today

at the Great Falls constructed paper and cotton, and manufactured

the first revolver at Sam Colt’s Works, the first locomotives at the

Rogers Works, as well as airplane engines and, of course, silk.

Paterson was the Silk City. Paterson is known around the world

for being the producer of such silk. These buildings represent the

various stages of the Industrial Revolution. They stand as monuments to progress. They are a mirror to hard-working American

families.

As a result of the employment opportunities that abound in

Paterson because of these mills, Mr. Chairman, the city’s population grew and diversified rapidly. Between 1850 and the turn-ofthe-century, Paterson’s population increased from 11,000 to

105,000 people, growing by an average of 50 percent per decade. As

a result, Paterson is representative of the waves of immigration in

the United States. The Irish and the English immigrants, replaced

later by the Italians and subsequently Spanish-speaking populations who still reside here today, 57 ethnic groups. Chronicling

the patterns and cultures of the immigrants that came to Paterson

from the 18th through the 20th centuries would provide us with a

microcosm of the effect of immigration in shaping this greatest of

all lands.

The historic labor unrest in Paterson focused on anti-child labor

legislation, safety in the workplace, the minimum wage and reasonable working hours. Some of the most important figures in early

20th-century labor history were involved in the Great Silk Strike

of 1913, and while teaching modern-day Americans about the history of the industry, the mills at Great Falls also set the backdrop

for the history of the labor movement. Today, they can teach both

histories so tightly intertwined.

Not only is the Great Falls Historic District historically significant, but the city of Paterson stands ready to work in conjunction

with the National Park Service to develop its potential. I am confident that the city is up to this task. This is the first legislative

15

step I have taken on behalf of the Great Falls toward joining the

National Park Service, but it is not the first time I have worked

with the city of Paterson to enhance and develop this valuable and

important area.

I have long thought that the Passaic River and the Great Falls

are not only a critical part of our past history, they are the key to

our future, to the city’s future, to the region’s future. We must do

all we can in a united fashion to protect these most valuable assets.

As the Mayor of Paterson, I went to Washington in 1993 to testify

before the House Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands, to help

convince Congress that this area was worth protecting. I was proud

to work with then-United States Senator Frank Lautenberg to secure Federal funds to revitalize the Great Falls Historic District.

Our work paid off, and the following year I stood with the Senator on the steps of the Paterson Museum and accepted $4.1 million in Federal dollars, secured under the Urban History Initiative,

to restore and rebuild the Stoney Road Bridge over the upper raceway, as well as hiking trails. This helps strengthen the relationship

between the National Park Service and the city of Paterson.

The Great Falls District has been on the National Register of

Historic Places since 1970, has been a national landmark named by

President Ford, and I was so proud to be there at the time that

he named, in 1976, this great, great landmark. He defined it. He

came to Paterson to do such. In 1988, the Interior Department listed the district as a Priority One threatened National Historic

Landmark. So the Park Service has long been aware of our need

to protect and save this area. Since the beginning of our relationship, the city and the Park Service have worked together in a partnership that has helped the city begin to develop and revitalize the

Great Falls Historic District.

You will hear later on, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, from Anna-Lisa Dopirak, the director of community development for the city of Paterson, who will share with you many examples of the strong relationship between the city and the National

Park Service. In addition to a strong partnership with the city, I

believe the key to the success of creating a viable and healthy historic district is community involvement, and that is why we created

an Advisory Committee that meets regularly with the Park Service

to choose the priorities and shape the direction the Great Falls Historic District will move in. As Mayor, I attended many of those

meetings and was impressed by the community’s interest and support on the issue.

You will also hear from Pat DiIanni, the president of Vision 20/

20, a community organization that is providing grass-roots support

for the revitalization of the entire county of Passaic, including the

Great Falls Historic District. He will share with you many examples of how the community has evolved.

These falls really represent our city, Mr. Chairman, its people

and its potential. This place can be a real destination, help us in

creating jobs, grow businesses and bring people back from all over.

You cannot put a velvet rope around the district. We must make

it a living, breathing attraction that will celebrate our past, present

and future.

16

In conclusion, I will steal the words of the National Park Service

in the Design Guidelines they created for the Great Falls Historic

District in 1999. ‘‘The district bears eloquent testimony to astounding feats of engineering and construction, to ingenious manufacturers and to the courage, creativity and drudgery of untold lives

spent within those mills. It is also about the human propensity to

harness the forces of nature, to put water and gravity and stone

to work. The district retains the sense of having been one large factory, driven by one powerful engine, an image completely consistent with Hamilton’s vision of a centralized national manufactory.’’ Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I am honored to appear before your Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pascrell follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress

from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 146

Thank you Mr. Chairman and the entire subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to testify here today. My legislation, H.R. 146, calls for a study of the Great

Falls National Historic District in my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, to determine the feasibility of adding it to the National Park System.

There is no dispute that the Great Falls Historic District possesses a historic significance that makes it an area to be preserved and treasured. The history here is

rich. Alexander Hamilton realized the incredible beauty and potential of the Great

Falls when he founded Paterson in 1792 as America’s first planned industrial city

and it is our duty to ensure its preservation for generations to come.

Already, tourists are pouring in every year to see the 77-foot Great Falls of the

Passaic River and to partake in our preserved history. For the past 12 years, an

average of 20,000 yearly visitors have attended the Paterson Museum in the Historic District. And the Great Falls Visitors Center reports almost 5,000 visitors to

the center in the last year.

The Falls and the surrounding neighborhood really represent the genesis of the

American economic miracle, and increasing the presence of the National Park Service here will give the area the attention and resources it rightly deserves.

As a key to our manufacturing roots, the mills that sit today at the Great Falls

constructed paper, cotton,. They manufactured the first revolver at Samuel Colt’s Works, the first locomotives at the Rogers Works, as well as airplane engines, and

of course silk. Paterson is known around the world as the Silk City. These buildings

represent the various stages of the industrial revolution in the United States. They

stand as monuments to progress, and could provide living museums for present day

Americans to learn about this important part of our history.

As a result of the employment opportunities that abounded in Paterson because

of the mills, the city’s population grew and diversified rapidly. Between 1850 and

the turn of the century, the population of Paterson increased from 11,000 to 105,000

growing by an average of 50 percent per decade.

As a result, Paterson is representative of the waves of immigration in the United

States, as Irish and English immigrants were replaced later by Italians, and then

subsequently Spanish-speaking populations who still reside there today.

Chronicling the patterns and cultures of the immigrants that came to Paterson

from the 18th through the 20th centuries would provide us with a microcosm of the

effect of immigrants in the shaping of the United States.

This convergence between the burgeoning industrial workplace and the fledgling

immigrant communities resulted in conflicts that led to the modern day labor movement.

The historic labor unrest in Paterson focused on anti-child labor legislation, safety

in the workplace, minimum wage, and reasonable working hours. Some of the most

important figures in early 20th Century American labor history were involved in the

Great Silk Strike of 1913.

While teaching modern day Americans about the history of industry, the mills at

Great Falls also set the backdrop for the history of the labor movement. Today they

can teach both histories—so tightly intertwined—together.

Not only is the Great Falls Historic District historically significant, but the city

of Paterson stands ready to work in conjunction with the National Park Service to

develop its potential. My goal is to create a synergistic partnership between the city

17

of Paterson and the National Park Service. I am confident that Paterson is up to

the task.

This bill is the first legislative step I have taken on behalf of Great Falls toward

joining the National Park Service. But it is not the first time I have worked with

the city of Paterson to enhance and develop this valuable and important area. I

have long thought that the Passaic River and the Great Falls are not only a critical

part of our past history. They are the key to our future, and we must do all we can

in a united fashion to protect these most valuable assets.

As Mayor of Paterson, I went to Washington in 1993 to testify before the House

Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands to help convince Congress that this area

was worth protecting.

I was proud to work closely with our former U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg to

secure Federal funds to revitalize the Great Falls Historic District. Our work paid

off and the following year, I stood with Senator Lautenberg on the steps of the

Paterson Museum and accepted $4.1 million in Federal dollars secured under the

Urban History Initiative to restore and rebuild the Stoney Road Bridge over the

Upper Raceway as well as hiking trails.

This helped strengthen a relationship between the National Park Service and the

city of Paterson that is ongoing today. But the city of Paterson has an even longer

history of working with the Federal Government to preserve its historic lands.

The Great Falls district has been on the National Register of Historic Places since

1970 and has been a National Historic Landmark since 1976. Since 1988, the Interior Department has listed the district as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark. So the Park Service has long been aware of our need to protect and

save this area.

Since the beginning of our relationship, the City and the Park Service have

worked together in a partnership that has helped the City begin to develop and revitalize the Great Falls Historic District.

You will hear later from Anna-Lisa Dopirak, the Director of Community Development for the city of Paterson, who will share with you many examples of the strong

relationship between the City and the National Park Service.

In addition to a strong partnership with the City, I believe that the key to the

success of creating a viable and healthy historic district is community involvement.

That is why we created an Advisory Committee that meets regularly with the Park

Service to choose the priorities and shape the direction the Great Falls Historic District will move in.

As Mayor of Paterson, I attended as many of those meetings as possible. I was

impressed by the community’s interest and support in this issue.

You will hear later from Pat DiIanni, the President of Vision 20/20, a community

organization that is providing grassroots support for the revitalization of Passaic

County, including the Great Falls Historic District. He will share with you other examples of community support and efforts to develop and protect the area through

community involvement.

These Falls really represent our city, its people and all its potential. This place

can be a real destination that will create jobs, grow businesses and bring people in

from all over. We cannot put a velvet rope around the district we must make it a

living, breathing attraction that will celebrate our past, present and future.

In conclusion, I will steal the words of the National Park Service in the Design

Guidelines they created for the Great Falls Historic District in 1999, ‘‘The district

bears eloquent testimony to astounding feats of engineering and construction, to ingenious manufacturers, and to the courage, creativity, and drudgery of untold lives

spent within the mills. It is also about the human propensity to harness the forces

of nature, to put water and gravity and stone to work. The district retains the sense

of having been one large factory driven by one powerful engine, an image completely

consistent with Hamilton’s vision of a centralized national manufactory.’’

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Simmons?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB SIMMONS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here

this afternoon to testify in support of H.R. 182, which is a bill to

18

study the inclusion of Connecticut’s Eightmile River as part of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and we have a map here

in the chamber, Mr. Chairman, which we can use to illustrate the

location of this river. As you probably know, Connecticut has a

wealth of natural resources, and the Eightmile River, which is located in the area to the east of the Connecticut River, which bisects

the State, is the area that we are talking about. It is a watershed

from three of our towns down into a cove, which then flows into

the river and then into Long Island Sound.

This river has been identified as an exemplary source of resources. It is free-flowing. It has excellent water quality. It has a

diversity of aquatic water habitats and fish species, including native trout, and it is also a recreational resource which figures into

the communities which surround it. Unfortunately, because of the

trends of development in Connecticut in recent years, it is not likely to remain in its current condition without some community effort

and some effort on our part to preserve and protect it.

That is why, on the very first day that I was sworn in as a freshman member of this House of Representatives, I introduced a bill

to study the Eightmile River for wild and scenic status. I was

pleased to be joined in that effort by all of my House colleagues on

both sides of the aisle, from Connecticut, and as well, I received

commitments from Senators Dodd and Lieberman on the Senate

side to introduce companion bills in that body. For more than 30

years, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has protected some

of our nation’s most precious rivers, and they are not all out west

or in some of the vast reaches of our country. In fact, in northwestern Connecticut, the Farmington River has achieved that status through legislation introduced by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. Connecticut can have a wild and scenic river. It is possible.

This Act makes sure that certain select rivers of the Nation that

have these outstanding assets will be preserved and protected, and

that they will be available to future generations. I think that the

Eightmile River possesses all of these qualities. I believe that the

dollars we are requesting for a study will demonstrate that beyond

a reasonable doubt, and this is the process we follow in these cases.

I am proud to submit this legislation on behalf of my constituents

in those three towns, and I would like to request if we could, Mr.

Chairman, that some correspondence between individuals and

organizations be introduced into the record. This is an initiative

that has broad-based support in the community, and these letters

demonstrate that commitment.

I am also excited that one of our three first selectmen from this

area is here with us today. That is Sue Merrow of East Haddam.

She has some testimony she would like to submit, and also Nathan

Frohling of The Connecticut Nature Conservancy is here to testify

on behalf of this bill. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. I am happy to answer any questions that you have, and I look

forward to working with you and your Committee on this legislation as we move forward.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

19

Statement by The Honorable Rob Simmons, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Connecticut, on H.R. 182

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to testify in support of H.R. 182, a bill to study the inclusion of Connecticut’s

Eightmile River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Eastern Connecticut is fortunate to have a wealth of natural beauty, such as the

Eightmile River. The river, and the watershed it supports, is an outstanding ecological system. It has been identified as an exemplary occurrence of one of Connecticut’s

most imperiled natural communities. Its streams are free flowing, contain excellent

water quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats and fish species, including native

and stocked trout. The Eightmile River is also an important recreational resource

and figures prominently in the character of the communities in which it flows.

Unfortunately, the Eightmile River is not likely to remain in this outstanding condition without a concerted community effort to protect it.

That’s why on my very first day in Congress, I introduced H.R. 182, a bill authorizing the National Park Service to study and determine whether the Eightmile

River is eligible for designation as a National Wild and Scenic River. I was pleased

to be joined in this effort by every member of Connecticut’s congressional delegation.

For more than 30 years, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has safeguarded

some of the nation’s most precious rivers. The Act intends that certain select rivers

of the Nation that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic,

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in freeflowing condition, and that they shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment

of present and future generations. Designated rivers receive protection to preserve

their-free-flowing condition, to protect the water quality and to fulfill other vital

national conservation purposes. I believe Connecticut’s Eightmile River possesses all

of these qualities, deserves all of these protections and should be looked at by the

National Park Service as an important addition to the National Wild and Scenic

River System.

I am very proud to submit this legislation at the request of my constituents in

East Haddam, Salem and Lyme. I am excited that the First Selectman of East

Haddam, Sue Merrow and Nathan Frohling of the Connecticut Nature Conservancy

are here in Washington to testify on behalf of this bill. Thank you.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, both of you, for your testimony. Let me ask you, Mr. Simmons, is there general—I take it

from what you said, you feel there is general local support for this?

Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely, and that is a critical point. We have

in these letters, they will demonstrate, I think, beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the three municipalities, and many of the

entities of those municipalities, official entities of those municipalities, and citizens and citizens groups support this initiative. In a

sense, I inherited the issue because, shortly after the election, I

went down into this area and was briefed on the project, and I

would say two years at work, at least, had gone into preparing materials in anticipation of submitting this legislation. So, when I was

briefed, I got a very comprehensive briefing, and I got a very clear

sense from public officials, private individuals and non-profit organizations, that they are all in support of this initiative.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, that is good, because we would not want, you

would not us to force this on the people of Connecticut if they do

not want it personally.

Mr. SIMMONS. That is a critical comment and that is why I have

asked, as two additional witnesses; one, that we have a representative from the Nature Conservancy to talk about the environmental

aspects of the river, but secondly, we have a local elected official,

a First Selectman, which is essentially a Mayor of one of the three

towns, testify. If, in fact, we were allowed to have more mayors testify, we would have them here, but we were asked only to bring

one.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell, what is there, there in

Paterson for people to see? Are the mills still in existence, and that

is part of what you are wanting to save?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, many of those mills are still in existence. They have been converted, some of them, to schools, to a

museum, to other manufacturing activities. Most of them are still

there, most of them have been preserved, Mr. Chairman, and this

is really something to see in its present form. We just imagine

what it would look like and what would be and what it would

produce if we are able to really have this partnership I have been

talking to you about.

This is a nonpartisan project, Mr. Chairman. The Governor of

the State, Donald DiFrancesco just became the Governor, has written, you have it in the record, his endorsement of this project. The

two Senators from New Jersey are with us one hundred percent,

as are the New Jersey members of this Committee, in support of

this project.

Mr. HEFLEY. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will enter my

statement for the record if that is okay with you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate to Congress

from the Virgin Islands

Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee will receive testimony on three unrelated

bills.

Our first bill, H.R. 146, introduced by Rep. Pascrell, would authorize a National

Park Service study of the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls

71

Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System.

I understand the area has a rich industrial history and that our witnesses will provide us with some details of the resource values found there. Our second bill,

H.R. 182, by Mr. Simmons, would authorize a study to determine whether it would

be appropriate to designate the Eightmile River as part of the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System. The Eightmile River is located in Southern Connecticut and

has already been identified by the National Park Service as a potential Wild and

Scenic River based on its outstanding scenic, geologic, and wildlife values.

While there is no controversy regarding the merits of H.R. 182, it is our understanding that the Administration will testify in opposition to the bill based on its

newly proposed moratorium on new additions to the National Park System. We look

forward to hearing more about this new policy.

Our last bill, H.R. 601, introduced by Rep. Simpson, would provide for hunting

on the Federal lands that were included within the Craters of the Moon National

Monument when the monument was enlarged on November 9, 2000. The bill also

provides for the disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of the expansion

area. I understand that there are some unusual circumstances pertaining to these

matters at the monument that the Administration witness will be able to elaborate

on.Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the presence of our witnesses here today and look

forward to their insights on the legislation that is before us.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have also been asked to enter the statement of Congressman Pallone for the record, I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in

Congress from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 146

I support H.R. 146, legislation introduced by my colleague Representative

Pascrell of New Jersey. H.R. 146 calls for a study of the Great Falls National Historic District to determine the feasibility of adding this location to the National Park

System. Representative Pascrell has identified a unique place, rich in the history

of America’s development. The Great Falls Historic District deserves great attention; it deserves designation as a National Park.

At the heart of the Great Falls Historic District is the 77-foot Great Falls of the

Passaic River, the second largest waterfall by volume east of the Mississippi River

and a key in our nation’s manufacturing history. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton

selected the Great Falls for the creation of an industrial site and with Pierre

Charles L’Enfant designed a waterpower system to increase the Nation’s manufacturing capabilities. Hamilton believed that America to be free from British influence, must be industrially free ; Great Falls is one or our founding father’s creations.

The Great Falls Historic District contains examples of 18th, 19th, and 20th-century water-powered remnants, including a three-tiered raceway and an abundance

of mills. This District is the historical home to the first Colt revolver at Samuel

Colt’s Works, the first locomotives and airplane engines at Rogers Works, and is

also known around the world as ′′Silk City′′. Great Falls Historic District includes

examples of almost every type of manufacturing facility built during America’s industrial revolution.

Additionally, Paterson, New Jersey is rich with the history of America’s immigrant workers. Migration patterns of workers in Paterson provide a sketch of America’s immigrant population and the role of immigrants in America’s factories. Further, labor issues in this industrial workplace led to the need for labor laws that

formed the foundation of today’s labor movement.

I support my colleague’s approach to review the potential of the Great Falls Historic District as a National Park. The Great Falls Historic District is an example

of New Jersey’s development, New Jersey’s brilliant ingenuity and New Jersey’s insight that should be preserved to serve as a history lesson to Americans for years

to come.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I want to welcome my colleagues, my classmate, Congressman Pascrell, who has introduced the bill to authorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Jun 12, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71154.TXTNEW HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
72

ize the National Park Service study. I am well aware of your efforts

on all fronts to improve the economic conditions of Paterson and

the surrounding area, and I see this as one other way of doing this.

I did not know that we shared Alexander Hamilton, who grew up

in my district in the Virgin Islands, which makes me even more

interested in your bill.

Mr. Simmons, when I said I would see you soon, I did not expect

to see you this soon at our Committee. Welcome. I am very interested in your bill. I have always been a supporter of the Scenic

River Program, however, at this point, it is my understanding that

the Administration has imposed a moratorium. I will be looking

forward to hearing from the Administration on more about the policy and why it is in place. But, just welcome, and thank you for

being here.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, did you have some testimony you wanted to share?

Mr. SIMPSON. No.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Gilchrest?

Mr. GILCHREST. Just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Pascrell, how many acres does this cover in Paterson?

Mr. PASCRELL. About 112 acres, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who owns it now?

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, various people. God owns the falls, which is

in the river and the river runs right through the district. There are

private ownerships. In fact, most of the ownership in the district

is privately owned—I would say most of the commercial properties,

there are also residents. It is a mixed zone where the Great Falls

Historic District is. As I pointed out before, President Ford named

this landmark back in 1976. We need the help of the Park Service,

in a synergistic partnership, to develop this so that it is really not

only a destination for tourists, but that the area itself is alive and

continues to grow.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am not familiar with the bill. Is it your

intention to have this owned and then run by the National Park

Service?

Mr. PASCRELL. Part of the district, as I said, is the falls itself.

There are parks on both sides of the falls, and that is something,

since I am not officially part of the government of Paterson, I

would recommend that there be some kind of relationship, some

kind of partnership in overseeing that particular parkland. It was

never my intention that the Park Service or the Federal Government own the entire district, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. The entire district is a little over 100 acres?

MR. PASCRELL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Has the State wanted to make it a State Park

or work with the county to make it a county-state partnership? Do

you need the money from the Federal Government to get some infusion of cash to make all this happen?

Mr. PASCRELL. We have had some infusion of Federal dollars, as

I pointed out, back in 1995 to begin the process. This is our first

real attempt to get the Park Service officially to be involved, physically, to be involved there in this partnership I have talked to you

about. The county has endorsed this. The State of New Jersey, as

73

I have just said to you, the Governor wrote a letter endorsing this

particular project. We have worked this on many different levels,

but we do need the Park Service there. I know many times we are

reluctant to talk about the Park Service in urban areas. We tend

to think of them more on a grandiose. This is a very different Committee, though. In the last two sessions we have gone beyond those

old parochialisms and commend this Committee, and that is why

I am very optimistic when I appear before you.

Mr. GILCHREST. I wish you well. I wish you good luck. I also wish

Mr. Simmons luck on the eight miles of wild and scenic. You don’t

often think of Connecticut as wild and scenic, but if you can save

a little wild and scenic in Connecticut, we are for it.

Mr. SIMMONS. I appreciate those remarks, sir. As I indicated, we

actually have the Farmington River in the northwestern part of the

State, which flows into the Connecticut River, and it currently has

wild and scenic status due to the efforts of my colleague, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, some years ago. We do have some unique

and special spots buried away in our tiny little State.

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe you can have a sister River in Idaho

called Moose Creek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Simpson?

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that I

have been to Connecticut and there are places that are both wild

and scenic. I apologize for being late and I did have an opening

statement on House Bill 601 that is on the schedule today. I want

to thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 601. I would like

to thank Don Clower of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and

Jack Fisher of the Idaho Wildlife Federation for traveling all the

way to Washington, D.C. to testify on behalf of this legislation. I

understand they are on panel number two.

On November 9, 2000, President Bill Clinton issued Presidential

Proclamation 7373 to expand the boundaries of Craters of the

Moon National Monument. Prior to Clinton’s proclamation, the

monument was comprised of 52,440 acres. President Coolidge

established the monument in 1924. Former President Clinton’s approximation expanded the boundaries to include, approximately,

661,287 acres of additional Federal land. The area is managed by

the Secretary of Interior through the National Park Service and by

the Bureau of Land Management. The National Park Service manages approximately 410,000 acres of the expansion, while the

Bureau of Land Management manages the remaining 251,000

acres.

When the monument was expanded, it was understood that continued access to hunting would be maintained. However, when the

proclamation was issued, hunting was restricted in the area of the

expansion managed by the National Park Service. Under this legislation, areas that were open to hunting before the expansion will

remain open to hunting under the jurisdiction and laws of the

State of Idaho. The legislation also ensures the grazing fees collected in the national monument are disposed according to the Taylor Grazing Act.

74

Unfortunately, due to the outmoded and antiquated national

monument process, there was not a formal means by which the

State of Idaho, the congressional delegation or the general public

could comment on the proposed monument expansion. While the

Idaho Fish and Game Commission expressed their interest in working with the Secretary of Interior to allow for appropriate wildlife

management in the expanded area, their concerns were largely ignored. When the Idaho congressional delegation and governor

spoke with the Secretary of the Interior about the Craters of the

Moon expansion, we were led to believe that hunting would not be

affected. In fact, the relevant language of the proclamation says

nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho with respect to fish and

wildlife management.

However, when the proclamation was issued, it was realized that

current National Park Service regulations preclude hunting in the

area of the expansion managed by the National Park Service;

therefore, denying access to traditional hunting grounds. H.R. 601

is about fairness and ensuring that Idahoans are not locked out of

traditional hunting areas. H.R. 601 has the support of the Idaho

Fish and Game Commission, the Idaho Fish and Game Advisory

Committee, the Idaho Wildlife Council, Idaho Wildlife Federation

and local county commissioners.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking the

opportunity to hold a hearing on this piece of legislation that is important to the State of Idaho. When you look at the expansion of

the Craters of the Moon into what is called the Great Rift, this

661,000 additional acres, it is largely lava rock and sagebrush, and

people ask if there are really any deer out there. I can tell you I

have never gotten one with a 30-06, but I have gotten one with a

Corvette and a Jeep, so there are plenty of deer out there. So thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mike Simpson, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Idaho

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 601. I would also

like to thank Don Clower, Idaho Fish and Game Commission; and Jack Fisher,

Idaho Wildlife Federation, for traveling all the way to Washington, DC to testify on

behalf of this legislation.

On November 9, 2000, former President Bill Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation 7373 to expand the boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National Monument.

Prior to Clinton’s proclamation, the monument was comprised of 54,440 acres. President Coolidge established the monument in 1924.

Former President Clinton’s proclamation expanded the boundaries to include approximately 661,287 acres of additional federal land. The area is managed by the

Secretary of Interior through the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land

Management. The National Park Service manages approximately 410,000 acres of

the expansion, while the Bureau of Land Management manages the remaining

251,000 acres. When the monument was expanded it was understood that continued

access to hunting would be maintained. However, when the proclamation was

issued, hunting was restricted in the area of the expansion managed by the National Park Service. Under my legislation, areas that were open to hunting before

the expansion will remain open to hunting under the jurisdiction and laws of the

State of Idaho. The legislation also ensures that grazing fees collected in the national monument are dispersed according to the Taylor Grazing Act.

Unfortunately, due to the outmoded and antiquated national monument process

there was not a formal means by which the State of Idaho, the congressional delegation, and the general public could comment on the proposed monument expansion.

75

While the Idaho Fish and Game expressed their interest in working with the Secretary of Interior to allow for appropriate wildlife management in the expanded

area, their concerns were ignored by an administration that cared little for public

input in land management decisions.

When the Idaho congressional delegation and Governor spoke with the Secretary

of Interior about the Craters of the Moon expansion we were led to believe that

hunting would not be affected. However, when the proclamation was issued it was

realized that current National Park Service regulations preclude hunting in the

area of the expansion managed by the National Park Service. Therefore, denying access to traditional hunting grounds.

H.R. 601 is about fairness and ensuring that Idahoans are not locked out of traditional hunting areas. H.R. 601 has the support of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Idaho Wildlife Council, Idaho

Wildlife Federation, and local county commissioners.

Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this hearing.

I am hopeful that the information presented here will allow us to move forward with

this common sense legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. My chief ability to harvest deer in Colorado has

been with my car, too, so I understand what you mean. Gentlemen,

if you would like to join us up here for the remaining part of the

hearing, or as much as you can stay, or if you would like to participate with us in the hearing, we would love to have you do it.

Let us go to a second panel. Mr. Joseph Doddridge, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the

Interior; Mr. Don Clower, Idaho Fish and Game Commission; and

Mr. Jack Fisher, Idaho Wildlife Federation. I want to take the two

Gentlemen from Idaho first, because you have come a long way and

I understand you have an airplane to catch later this afternoon.

You can choose whichever one of you would like to speak first and

we will go from there.

Mr. Fisher, you drew the short straw?

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that I won the toss in

this case.

Mr. HEFLEY. Which goal do you choose to defend?

STATEMENT OF JACK FISHER, IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

NAMPA, IDAHO

Mr. FISHER. We will find that out here real soon. Mr. Chairman

and members of the Subcommittee, I want to say my name is Jack

Fisher and I’m the President of the Idaho Wildlife Federation. I’m

also a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee.

I want to thank you for allowing us to participate in today’s hearing on H.R. 601. My testimony will focus primarily on the hunting

aspect of this resolution, and will be on behalf of the Idaho Wildlife

Federation and the Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee. The

Idaho Wildlife Federation is Idaho’s oldest conservation organization. The Federation’s primary mission is to promote citizen support for the conservation of Idaho’s wildlife and natural resources,

for fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation benefiting all future

generations.

Our current membership totals nearly 6,000 Idaho citizens. The

Idaho Wildlife Federation was founded in 1936 and, in fact, this

Friday we will be celebrating our 65th anniversary at our annual

meeting. I would also like to mention that the Idaho Wildlife Federation is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation.

76

Mr. Chairman, the sportsmen and women of Idaho are extremely

concerned over the loss of the hunting opportunity due to assignment of management responsibility for the expanded acres of the

Craters of the Moon National Monument to the National Park

Service. In our opinion, H.R. 601 has more to do with instilling a

sense of faith in the integrity of our government. When the Craters

of the Moon National Monument was being discussed in Idaho, the

Idaho Wildlife Federation voiced concerns that hunting opportunities might be lost, and it seems that those concerns have proved

to be well founded.

It is our understanding that assurances were given to Idaho’s

congressional delegation, as well as Idaho’s governor, that hunting

would continue to be allowed if the expansion was approved. Some

believe that by merely assigning management responsibility of the

expanded area to the National Park Service, it was going to automatically eliminate hunting. That is certainly what has happened,

and while there are those who support such restrictions, the Idaho

Wildlife Federation is not one of them.

The very size and remoteness of the area that now comprises the

Craters of the Moon National Monument makes restrictions for

hunting needless. I believe it is important to put the size of the

area we are talking about into perspective. I have researched the

size of Washington D.C., and found out that it encompasses approximately 43,000 acres, or 68.2 square miles. By comparison, the

expanded portion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument

encompasses some 661,000 acres, or 948 square miles, which is

about 14 times the size of Washington, DC.

As for lost hunting opportunity, in 1999, elk hunters spent an estimated 2,158 man days afield, and additionally deer hunters spent

another 1,238 man days in the area. In addition, antelope, sage

grouse and doves are hunted in significant numbers, which would

further add to the utilization in this area. The loss of nearly 4,000

man days of hunting opportunity will put additional stress on surrounding wildlife management areas at a time when hunting pressure is of a growing concern.

The economic impact for just the deer and elk hunting alone

equates to about $210,000. Now, that may not seem like much of

a dollar impact, but in rural Idaho it is definitely very significant.

I believe that it is important to mention that currently the area

does not have a wildlife deprivation problem that would be

involving adjacent private landowners’ agricultural crops. However,

the loss of hunting opportunity and the lack of harvest of the surplus deer and elk and antelope will most certainly result in future

deprivation problems.

Controversy surrounding wildlife deprivation statewide is a constant problem and was the primary reason for creating the Idaho

Fish and Game Advisory Committee initially in 1989. So, in

closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my appreciation to

Representative Mike Simpson for presenting this legislation, and I

would like to point out that virtually nothing has changed except

the designation of this land as part of the Craters of the Moon

National Monument, and the transfer of management responsibility from one government agency to another, and as such, I urge

that you and the members of your Committee support H.R. 601.

77

As I had mentioned earlier in my testimony, this is really an

issue about instilling a sense of faith in the integrity of our government, by keeping promises and restoring our traditional hunting

opportunities in this area. That concludes my testimony on this,

sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]

Statement by Jack W. Fisher, President, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and

Member, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Advisory Committee

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting us to participate in today’s hearing on House Resolution

601. My testimony will focus on the hunting aspects of the resolution. However, before doing so, I believe it is important to provide you with some background information concerning the Idaho Wildlife Federation who I have the honor of representing. My testimony will also be on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and

Gem’s Advisory Committee of which I am a member. The Advisory Committee’s membership represents both sportsmen and agricultural interests.

BACKGROUND

The Idaho Wildlife Federation is Idaho’s oldest conservation organization. The

Federation’s primary mission is to promote citizen support for the conservation of

the state’s wildlife and natural resources for fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation benefiting future generations. We currently have several hundred members

and 25 affiliate organizations. Our affiliates represent diverse sportsmen’s interests

from throughout Idaho including archery, fishing, law enforcement, hunting dogs,

wild turkeys and even a herpetological society. Membership to our affiliate groups

varies from a relative handful to well over a thousand in the case of the Idaho State

Bowhunters organization.

The Idaho Wildlife Federation was founded in 1936 as an outgrowth of the national Civilian Conservation Corps program due to growing citizen concern about

conservation and wildlife management. This Friday we will be celebrating our 65th

anniversary at our annual banquet. I would also like to mention that the Idaho

Wildlife Federation is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation although we

function independently.

IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION’S AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S INTEREST IN H.R. 601

The sportsmen of Idaho are extremely concerned over the loss of hunting opportunities due to assignment of management responsibility for expanded acreage of the

Craters of the Moon National Monument to the National Park Service.

It is our opinion the resolution has more to do with instilling a sense of faith in

the integrity of our government. When the expansion of Craters of the Moon National Monument was being discussed, the Idaho Wildlife Federation was concerned

that hunting opportunities might be lost. It seems those concerns have proved to

be well founded.

It has been our understanding that assurances were given to Idaho’s congressional delegation as well as Idaho’s Governor that hunting would continue to be allowed if the expansion was approved. We are uncertain if some of those involved

may have known surreptitiously that, by assigning management responsibility for

a portion of the expanded area to the National Park Service, hunting would automatically be restricted. However, that is certainly what has happened and while

there may be those who support such restrictions, our organization is not one of

them.

IMPACTS DUE TO THE LOSS OF HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES

The very size of the area that now comprises the Craters of the Moon National

Monument makes restrictions on hunting needless. I believe it is important to try

and put the size of the area we are talking about into some sort of perspective. To

do so, I researched the size of Washington, D.C. and found it encompasses about

43,648 acres or 68.2 square miles. By comparison, just the expanded area of the

Craters of the Moon National Monument encompasses 607,000 acres or about 948

square miles, roughly 14 times the size of Washington, D.C. Thus, with the mere

stroke of a pen, such a vast remote area was placed off limits to those who have

traditionally hunted in the area.

I would like to point out that I am not aware of any hunting-related mishaps in

the area in question so safety is really not an issue. As for lost hunting opportuniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Jun 12, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71154.TXTNEW HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
78

ties, in 1999 elk hunters spent an estimated 2,158 days in the field and deer hunters another 1,238 days in this area. I was unable to obtain similar estimates for

other species such as antelope and sage grouse which would add to the hunter utilization information. From an economic impact standpoint for just elk and deer hunting in the management area involved, the numbers equate to about $210,795. That

may not seem like much of a dollar impact to some of you, but in rural Idaho it’s significant.

Additionally, I believe it is important to mention that currently the area does not

have a wildlife depredation problem involving adjacent private landowners’ agricultural crops. However, the loss of hunting opportunities and harvest of elk and deer

will most likely result in a depredation problem due to the inability to keep wildlife

populations in check by hunter harvest. Controversies surrounding wildlife depredation in general is a constant problem and was the primary reason for creating the

Fish and Game Advisory Committee.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to extend appreciation to Representative

Mike Simpson for sponsoring the resolution. I would also like to point out that virtually nothing has changed except for the designation of the bud as part of the Craters of the Moon National Monument and the transfer of management responsibility

from one government agency to another. As such, I urge you and members of your

Subcommittee to support House Resolution 601.

As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, this is really an issue about instilling

faith and integrity in our government by keeping promises and retaining traditional

hunting opportunities. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or

other members of your Subcommittee may have at this time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Clower?

STATEMENT OF DON CLOWER, IDAHO FISH AND GAME

COMMISSION, MERIDIAN, IDAHO

Mr. CLOWER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would

like to take just a moment to thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of the Subcommittee. My name is Don Clower. I am

a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. A brief history

of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission; there are seven commissioners who are appointed by the Governor of Idaho to manage the

affairs of the Idaho Fish and Game department and manage the

wildlife in the State of Idaho. I was appointed to this commission

in 1999 by Governor Dirk Kempthorne. The Craters of the Moon

National Monument was expanded to 661,000 acres. Hunting has

been a traditional part of this expansion long before white men

ever came to the State of Idaho.

I would like to point out one part of the proclamation that has

been brought up a couple of times before, but I believe has a great

amount of importance on this issue. The proclamation states that

nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho with respect to fish and

wildlife management. We were led to believe, when this monument

proclamation was under discussion, that traditional hunting and

other uses of this area would be guaranteed.

Immediately upon the Park Service taking over the management

of this land, we lost that ability to manage the wildlife and exercise

the rights of the State of Idaho to manage our wildlife. Hunting

and trapping will not harm the resources the monument was established to protect. The monument was originally established and recently expanded to protect geological formations. This is a very isolated area in the central part of the State of Idaho, very inaccesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Jun 12, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71154.TXTNEW HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
79

sible. There is really only one road that passes through Craters of

the Moon. The other roads are two tracks, very unimproved roads

that lead out into different sections of the lava flow that are available for hunting and trapping. Last year, Jack gave you the number of man hours that were utilized in the Craters of the Moon for

hunting.

We have a really good elk herd out there that produces outstanding opportunities to elk hunt. We have a large deer herd and

we have a large antelope herd, which provide opportunity for

sportsmen in the State of Idaho to harvest during hunting seasons.

Our hunting seasons are very short. They run for a couple of

months in the late fall and they do not interfere and never have

interfered with the management of this particular area. Again, you

will have to understand, this is a very, very remote part of Idaho

and fairly inaccessible.

Prohibiting hunting will result in a loss of unique and highly valued recreational opportunities. There is a common misconception

that no hunting takes place in the lava flows, but there is a considerable amount of use of this particular area. Prohibiting hunting

and trapping on the expansion is also administratively impractical,

if not impossible, because of having to try to sign the different

areas in the lava flow, because if you have ever been out to the

Craters of the Moon, the lava flow comes and goes in a very, very

large area. I am not too sure exactly how you would sign all this

area to prohibit hunting in one portion and the other portion managed by the BLM would continue to allow hunting. So it would be

a very difficult area, in our opinion, to try to manage.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission

requests passage of H.R. 601 because it makes sense. The rules regarding the use of the national monument should be tailored to the

resource or the designation it was designed to protect. Uses that

do not conflict with the purpose of the designation should not only

be allowed, they should be encouraged. Hunting and trapping are

compatible with the expanded area of the Craters of the Moon National Monument. These activities have been going on there for

years without harming the scenic beauty of this unearthly landscape. Let’s keep it that way. I would like to thank the Committee

and Congressman Simpson for allowing us the opportunity to come

here today and speak in support of this legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clower follows:

Statement of Don Clower, Idaho Fish and Game Commission

My name is Don Clower. I am a member of and am testifying on behalf of the

Idaho Fish and Game Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to address this Subcommittee in support of Congressman Simpson’s bill regarding hunting on the recent expansion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho.

The expansion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument was imposed by

Presidential Proclamation on November 9, 2000. This expansion was significant, increasing the size of the monument nearly tenfold to 661,000 acres with 410,000

acres to be managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The remaining 250,000

acres will be managed by the BLM.

The NPS-administered portion of the expansion will be closed to hunting and

trapping, in spite of language in the President’s proclamation that states: ‘‘Nothing

in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the

State of Idaho with respect to fish and wildlife management.’’ The rationale behind

this decision to exclude hunting and trapping seems to be based on the practice that

80

the NPS does not normally allow these activities on lands it administers unless

there is legislation specifically allowing hunting and trapping. Hence the apparent

need for Congressman Simpson’s legislation. We urge you to support this legislation

for the following reasons:

Hunting and trapping will not harm the resources the monument was established

to protect. The monument was originally established and recently expanded to protect geologic formations. These activities will not have any impact on the lava flows

or other geologic features of the monument that are any different than other uses

of the monument like hiking, photography or sightseeing. Vehicles are restricted to

existing roads and trails and apply to all users.

Hunting and trapping will not interfere with other uses of the monument. Seasons for both activities are relatively short and have limited participation. Hunting

is confined to the months of September through November, which are outside the

high visitation months of June, July and August while trapping is conducted from

December through February. Under Congressman Simpson’s proposed legislation,

these traditional activities would only be allowed on the expansion, the original

monument with its parking areas and visitor center would remain closed to hunting.

Prohibiting hunting and trapping on the expansion is administratively impractical

if not impossible. The expanded monument contains land managed by the NPS and

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The NPS land includes the lava flows and

the BLM land includes the sagebrush and grassland habitats surrounding the flows.

The boundary between the land managed by the BLM, where hunting will continue

to be allowed, and the NPS where hunting is prohibited is indistinct and is not

readily discernible by the public. In order to post signs on the boundary, it would

have to be surveyed, at considerable expense. The resultant signing would be unsightly and defeat the purpose of protecting the scenic beauty of the area. Until

signing is completed, the public will not be able to tell if they are in the area open

to hunting and trapping.

Prohibiting hunting on the expansion will have negative impacts to nearby farmland. The loss of hunting and expanded refuge created by the monument is likely

to result in increases in elk numbers. In the last twenty years, ‘elk populations have

increased dramatically on the sagebrush steppe lands surrounding the Monument

and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). These

animals spend the daylight hours where hunting is prohibited and depredate adjacent agricultural lands at night. Large refuges like the INEEL and the expanded

Craters Monument make it very difficult to control the size of these elk herds. In

addition, higher elk populations could alter the unique native plant communities

found in the lava flows and smaller kipukas that the monument desires to protect.

Prohibiting hunting and other wildlife management practices will inhibit our ability

to manage big game populations at a level that is compatible with other resource

uses and values. We suggest that the proposed legislation allow other wildlife management practices on the expansion, like trapping and aerial survey.

Prohibiting hunting will result in the loss of a unique and highly valued recreational opportunity. There is a common misconception that no hunting takes place

on the lava flows. Hunters and trappers do use this area. Those willing to brave

the remote and hostile terrain are rewarded with a truly unique recreational experience. Trapping should also be authorized in the legislation.

Allowing hunting on lands managed by the National Park Service will not set a

precedent. In the past the IDFG has successfully advocated maintaining hunting opportunity in the designation of National Monuments in Idaho. When the Hagerman

Fossil Beds National Monument and the City of the Rocks National Reserve were

designated, both remained open to hunting. The IDFG has worked closely with the

NPS and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to ensure hunting does not

conflict with other uses of these lands. The Department is committed to continuing

this relationship on the expanded Craters of the Moon National Monument.

The concerns I have outlined here today will come as no surprise to the NPS, the

BLM and other Department of Interior (DOI) officials familiar with the proposal to

expand the Craters of the Moon. We were disappointed in the lack of coordination

by the DOI in the early phases of this proposal. We were not notified of or invited

to participate in public meetings or interagency discussions on expansion of the Craters. In spite of this, the Commission made their concerns known in writing and

in testimony prior to the President’s proclamation, all to no avail. Our Governor,

Dirk Kempthome, has written Secretary Gale Norton on this issue and our legislature has passed a memorial regarding hunting in the Craters expansion area.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission requests passage

of this legislation because it makes sense. The rules regarding uses of National

Monuments should be tailored to the resources the designation was designed to protect. Uses that do not conflict with the purpose of the designation should not only

81

be allowed, they should be encouraged. Hunting and trapping are compatible with

the expanded area of the Craters of the Moon National Monument. These activities

have been going on there for years without harming the scenic beauty of this

unearthly landscape. Let’s keep it that way. I thank you for this opportunity to testify and for your favorable consideration of this request.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Doddridge?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DODDRIDGE, ACTING ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

appear before your Committee today. I have three different bills to

testify on, and I would like to present them, with your concurrence

or approval, in the order that they were presented to you. The first

would be H.R. 146, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great

Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey as a unit of the

Park System. The Department of the Interior recommends that the

Committee defer action on H.R. 146 until the Park Service is able

to make further progress on the President’s initiative to eliminate

the deferred maintenance backlog within the next five years. We

are seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit designations or authorized new studies so that we can focus our existing

staff and resources on taking care of what we now own. We also

want to use our available planning funds to complete previously

authorized studies in establishing new park units or expanding

units.

I should say that, in addition, we are concerned that such a

study could serve to divert the city of Paterson and the National

Park Service from the very real opportunities authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996, and opportunities that have yet to be fully

realized. As Congressman Pascrell stated, the 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity both to demonstrate its capacity for leadership and partnership, and to develop and implement

a preservation program as indicators of its commitment and capacity. Successful completion of that program could lead to a future

congressional designation or a reauthorized partnership funding, as

appropriate. Our concern is, given the limited resources we have

for special resources study, that this could divert attention from existing opportunity authorized in the 1996 Act.

This could take a few years to complete, especially when considering other congressionally authorized studies that are competing

for limited resources available to the program. If the recommendations of the study were negative and the congressional action forthcoming, there would be no preservation or development action

available to us. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.

The next bill, which is H.R. 182, would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating segments of the Eightmile River for

study and potential addition to the Wild and Scenic River System.

As in the previous bill, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that the

Committee defer action on this until we can make further progress

on our initiative to eliminate the backlog within the next five

years.

82

We are seeking this temporary moratorium until we can sort this

out and make some progress in this area. I should point out, as

Congressman Simmons indicates, that over the past couple of

years, the Park Service has responded to interest and inquiries

from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential Wild

and Scenic River study for the Eightmile River. There appears to

be strong local commitment and interest and support for protecting

the river system, as evidenced by the Committee’s formation of an

intermunicipal watershed committee and the signing of an innovative Eightmile River watershed conservation concept. The concept,

signed by the communities of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem acknowledge their commitment to protect and enhance water resources, wildlife habitats and rural landscapes in the watershed.

I should also point out that, in going through the material before

this hearing, the Fish and Wildlife Service has also worked closely

with the local communities as far as possible additions to the Conte

Refuge. So there is more than one agency in the Department of the

Interior that is interested in this watershed. But notwithstanding

the strong support, we again recommend that Congress defer action

on this until we make further progress in eliminating our maintenance backlog. Thank you.

As far as the third bill which I am here to testify on today,

H.R. 601, a bill to ensure continued access of hunters to those Federal lands included within the boundaries of the Craters of the

Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 on November 9, 2000, and to continue

the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act and the disposition of

grazing fees arising from the use of such lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, the Department supports H.R. 601, which would

preserve hunting on the NPS-managed portion of the monument

expansion. As Congressman Simpson pointed out, and the gentleman from Idaho, prior to the recent proclamation, Craters of the

Moon National Monument was managed solely by the National

Park Service. The expansion of the monument, however, consists of

lands that have been administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The proclamation gives both agencies responsibilities for administering the monument cooperatively. The National Park Service has the primary management responsibility for the old monument, plus the approximate 400,000-acre addition that consists of

exposed lava flows. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for administering the remainder of the portion.

The proclamation specified that the NPS portion is to be managed under the same laws and regulations that applied to the original monument. Since hunting has not been authorized in the original Craters of the Moon National Monument, the effect of the proclamation was to prohibit hunting in the NPS portion of the monument expansion. However, the Department supports a clarification

of this language to allow continued use of the lands in the expanded monument area for hunting. Hunting in a portion of the

monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management is not

affected.

The Department also recognizes that legislation to provide the

authority for hunting within the NPS management portion of the

83

monument expansion would give the superintendent the ability to

work cooperatively with the State of Idaho on issues concerning

adjacent landowners. For example, hunting could be used as a tool

in mitigating agricultural depredation caused by elk grazing on alfalfa crops on privately owned lands outside the monument. While

the Department supports legislation to continue hunting in the

NPS portion of the monument, this does not include support for

opening to hunting the portion of the monument that existed prior

to the proclamation. That portion has always been and should continue to be closed to hunting. In addition, I would like to clarify

that the Department’s position on this specific issue does not indicate support for opening other areas of the park system to hunting.

I will be finished shortly, Mr. Chairman. While the Department

supports the intent of H.R. 601, to open the NPS-managed portion

of the monument expansion, we are concerned over the language

in Section 1(b) that appears to preclude any authority of the Secretary to exercise jurisdiction over the activity. Is that an omen,

Congressman?

[Laughter.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I would say that was the first negative thing you

said.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DODDRIDGE. We believe that the Secretary has a role to play

in cooperation with the State to ensure that hunting is consistent

with public safety, area administration, protection of the monument’s resources, and public use and enjoyment. We have attached

proposed language for the Committee’s consideration that is consistent with similar provisions and laws that authorize hunting in

other park areas. H.R. 601 also requires the Taylor Grazing Act to

continue to apply to the disposition of grazing fees arising from the

use of the expansion area.

It requires a certain percentage of fees to be returned to the

grazing district in which the use occurs. However, it is my understanding that since no grazing occurs in the NPS portion of the expansion area and the proclamation does not affect grazing on the

BLM portion, we feel this provision is unnecessary. This concludes

my testimony on the three bills, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Doddridge follow:]

Statement of Joseph E. Doddridge, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish

and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 146

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

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 146, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the

National Park System.

The Department of the Interior recommends that the Committee defer action on

H.R. 146 until the National Park Service (NPS) is able to make further progress

on the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog within

five years. We are seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit designations

or authorizations of new studies so that we can focus our existing staff and resources on taking care of what we now own. We also want to use our available planning funds to complete previously authorized studies with a close examination of the

life-cycle costs of establishing a new park unit, expanding an existing unit, or adding new NPS funding obligations.

Paterson, New Jersey has a rich history as the Nation’s first planned industrial

city as well as containing some of the country’s oldest textile mills. In 1792,

84

Alexander Hamilton formed an investment group called the Society of Useful Manufactures whose funds would be used to develop a planned industrial city in the

United States that was later to become Paterson. Hamilton believed that the United

States needed to reduce its dependence on foreign goods and should instead develop

its own industries. The industries developed in Paterson were powered by the 77-

foot high Great Falls of the Passaic, and a system of water raceways that harnessed

the power of the falls. The district originally included dozens of mill buildings and

other manufacturing structures associated with the textile industry and later, the

firearms, silk, and railroad locomotive manufacturing industries. In the latter half

of the 1800’s, silk production became the dominant industry and formed the basis

of Paterson’s most prosperous period, earning it the nickname Silk City. Paterson

was also the site of historic labor unrest that focused on anti-child labor legislation,

safety in the workplace, a minimum wage, and reasonable working hours.

Industrial decline in Paterson followed the general pattern for northern textile cities, with a major decrease in business during the middle third of the 20th Century.

Today, the historic district reflects many phases of decline and renewal: some buildings are deteriorated and vacant, while others continue in industrial use or have

been adaptively reused for housing and offices.

Because of its significant role in the economic and industrial development of the

United States, the 89-acre Great Falls of the Passaic/Society of Useful Manufactures

Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and

designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1976. Since 1988 the District

has been listed as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark in the Department of the Interior’s annual report to Congress on NHLs. This threatened status is primarily based on the condition of the 7-acre site that formerly housed the

Allied Textile Printers. This site, immediately below the Great Falls, has been devastated by a dozen fires over the last 15 years. The site was acquired by the city

of Paterson through foreclosure in 1994 and a developer is currently under contract

to redevelop the site.

In addition, we are concerned that such a study would serve to divert the city of

Paterson and the National Park Service from the very real opportunities authorized

by Congress in 1992 and 1996, opportunities that have yet to be fully realized.

In the Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior,

Congress appropriated funds for the New Jersey Urban History Initiative to provide

funding for historic preservation projects that encourage economic development. The

city of Paterson was authorized to receive $4.147 million in Urban History Initiative

funds to be administered by the NPS under a cooperative agreement with the City.

Over the years, the NPS has worked closely with the City to use the money to protect historic resources while fostering compatible economic development. This initiative has shown results such as funding projects for research, community grants, and

restoration of historic resources. For example, Urban History Initiative funds were

used for an oral history project and ethnographic study conducted by the Library

of Congress American Folklife Center. Funds were also used for the stabilization of

the ruins of the Colt Gun Mill as part of a match for a New Jersey Historic Trust

grant to the city of Paterson.

The second major congressional initiative to support historic preservation opportunities in Paterson is section 510 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4158). The Great Falls Historic

District was authorized for $3.3 million in matching grants and assistance to develop and implement a preservation and interpretive plan for the District, and permit the development of a market analysis with recommendations of the economic

development potential of the District. Yet, none of these funds authorized in 1996

have been appropriated.

Although the City has committed to the raising of the matching funds required

under the authorization, we do not believe that this has yet occurred. Such matching funds will be important because recent legislation indicates that Congress expects significant non-Federal matches for new units of the national park system containing large numbers of historic buildings such as the New Bedford National Historical Park and Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. Without this

demonstrated local financial support for the operation and protection of new park

units, it is probably not feasible to recommend their addition to the System.

The 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity both to demonstrate

its capacity for partnership, and to develop and implement a preservation program

as indicators of its commitment and capacity. The successful completion of that program could lead to a future congressional designation or reauthorized partnership

funding as appropriate.

Our concern is that given limited resources, a special resource study (SRS) could

divert attention from the existing opportunities authorized in the 1996 Act. The SRS

85

could easily take years to complete, especially when considering other congressionally authorized studies that are competing for limited money available in this program. If the recommendations of the study were negative and no congressional action forthcoming, years would have passed with no preservation or development action.

The National Park Service believes in the important historic and natural resources in the city of Paterson, and we believe in the capacity of the City to identify

matching funding. There are signs this is beginning to happen. The breadth of activities allowed under the 1996 Act is much greater than those normally authorized

for a national park unit. It is our sincere wish that the currently authorized preservation initiative for Paterson be allowed to proceed rather than being delayed by

a study.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other Committee

members might have.

Statement of Joseph E. Doddridge, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 182

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 182. H.R. 182 would

amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating segments of the Eightmile

River for study and potential addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The Department of the Interior recommends that the Committee defer action on

H.R. 182 until the National Park Service (NPS) is able to make further progress

on the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog within

five years. We are seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit designations

or authorizations of new studies so that we can focus our existing staff and resources on taking care of what we now own. We also want to use our available planning funds to complete previously authorized studies with a close examination of the

life-cycle costs of establishing a new park unit, expanding an existing unit, or adding new NPS funding obligations.

The Eightmile River is located in the lower Connecticut River watershed in south

central Connecticut. Fifteen miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch

through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, Connecticut are included on the National Park Service’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild

and Scenic River segments. Both segments are included on the Inventory for outstanding scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife values. Over eighty percent of the Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts of unfragmented

hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage of plants and animals including bobcats, Great Horned Owls, red foxes, and the Cerbulean Warbler.

Over the course of the past two years, the National Park Service has responded

to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River study for the Eightmile River. There appears to be strong

local support for protecting the river system, as evidenced by the communities formation of an inter-municipal watershed committee and the signing of an innovative

Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact. This compact, signed by the

communities of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem, acknowledges their commitment to

protect and enhance water resources, wildlife habitats, and rural landscapes in the

watershed.

Notwithstanding the strong local support, we again recommend that the Committee defer action on the bill until the National Park Service is able to make further progress to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog.

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer

any questions you or other Committee members may have regarding this bill.

Statement of Joseph E. Doddridge, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 601

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on

H.R. 601, a bill to ensure the continued access of hunters to those Federal lands

included within the boundaries of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in

the State of Idaho pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 on November 9,

2000, and to continue the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act to the disposition

of grazing fees arising from the use of such lands, and for other purposes.

86

The Department supports H.R. 601, which would preserve hunting on the NPSmanaged portion of the monument expansion.

Craters of the Moon National Monument was established by Proclamation of

President Calvin Coolidge in 1924 for the purpose of protecting the unusual landscape of the Craters of the Moon lava field. This unusual landscape was thought

to resemble the surface of the Moon and the Proclamation stated that the area ‘‘contains many curious and unusual phenomena of great educational value and has a

weird and scenic landscape peculiar to itself.’’ Between 1924 and 1962, the monument was expanded and boundary adjustments were made through four Presidential

proclamations. In 1996, a minor boundary adjustment was made by section 205 of

the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 4093;

Public Law 104-333). On November 9, 2000, President Clinton’s proclamation expanded the 53,440-acre monument by adding approximately 661,287 acres of Federal lands.

The expanded monument includes almost all the features of basaltic volcanism,

including the craters, cones, lava flows, caves, and fissures of the 65-mile long Great

Rift, a geological feature that is comparable to the great rift zones of Iceland and

Hawaii. It comprises the most diverse and geologically recent part of the lava terrain that covers the southern Snake River Plain, a broad lava plain made up of innumerable basalt lava flows that erupted during the past 5 million years.

Prior to the recent proclamation, Craters of the Moon National Monument was

managed solely by the National Park Service. The expansion area of the monument,

however, consists of lands that had been administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The proclamation gives both agencies responsibilities for administering

the monument cooperatively. The National Park Service has the primary management responsibility for the old monument, plus the approximately 400,000-acre portion of the expansion area that consists of exposed lava flows. The Bureau of Land

Management is responsible for administering the remaining portion of the monument.

The proclamation specified that the NPS portion of the monument expansion is

to be managed under the same laws and regulations that applied to the original

monument. Since hunting has not been authorized in the original Craters of the

Moon National Monument, the effect of the proclamation was to prohibit hunting

in the NPS portion of the monument expansion. However, the Department supports

a clarification of this language to allow the continued use of the lands in the expanded monument area for hunting. Hunting in the portion of the monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management is not affected.

Furthermore, although the proclamation specifies that the National Park Service

has jurisdiction over the exposed lava flows, the on-the-ground reality is that there

is not a precise delineation between areas of vegetation and areas of bare rock, making it difficult in many cases to determine the exact location of the boundary. For

the average visitor or hunter, it would be difficult, if not impossible to distinguish

whether they were on BLM lands or NPS lands, at least in the vicinity of the jurisdictional boundaries.

The Department also recognizes that legislation to provide the authority for hunting within the NPS-managed portion of the monument expansion would give the

Superintendent the ability to work cooperatively with the State of Idaho on issues

concerning adjacent landowners. For example, hunting could be used as a tool in

mitigating agricultural depredation caused by elk grazing on alfalfa crops on privately owned lands outside the monument.

While the Department supports legislation to allow continued hunting in the NPS

portion of the Craters of the Moon expansion area, this does not include support for

opening to hunting the portion of the monument that existed prior to the proclamation of November 9, 2000. That portion of the national monument has always been,

and should continue to be closed to hunting.

In addition, I would like to clarify that the Department’s position on this specific

issue does not indicate support for opening other areas of the National Park System

to hunting.

While the Department supports the intent of H.R. 601 to open the NPS-managed

portion of the monument expansion to hunting, we are concerned over the language

in section 1(b) that appears to preclude any authority of the Secretary to exercise

jurisdiction over the activity. We believe that the Secretary has a role to play, in

cooperation with the State, to ensure that hunting is consistent with public safety,

area administration, protection of the monument’s resources, and public use and enjoyment of the monument. We have attached proposed language for the Committee’s

consideration that is consistent with similar provisions in laws that authorize hunting in other park areas.

87

H.R. 601 also requires the Taylor Grazing Act to continue to apply to the disposition of grazing fees arising from use of the expansion area. The Act requires a certain percentage of grazing fees to be returned to the grazing district in which the

use occurs. However, since no grazing occurs in the NPS portion of the expansion

area and the proclamation does not affect grazing on the BLM portion, we feel this

provision is unnecessary.

This concludes my testimony on H.R. 601. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Proposed amendment to H.R. 601 On page 3, strike lines 10 through 16 and insert the following: ‘‘(b) Continued Access for Hunting.—-The Secretary shall permit hunting on those

portions of Craters of the Moon National Monument that were open to hunting before the issuance of Presidential Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000 in accordance with the applicable laws of the United States and the State of Idaho. The Secretary, in consultation with the State, may designate zones where and periods when

no hunting may be permitted for reasons of public safety, protection of the monument’s resources, area administration, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribing such restrictions relating to hunting shall be

put in effect only after consultation with the appropriate state agency having jurisdiction over hunting.’’.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Doddridge, let me just clarify, does the Department intend to object to every study or designation until the backlog is taken care of, not particularly Wild and Scenic Rivers, but

any of them?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. I really cannot answer that question, Mr.

Hefley. I think the Secretary is studying this issue right now. I

would think for us to come up before you for the next four years

to say that, well, we are getting there but we are not quite there

yet, would probably be not the most prudent course of action.

Mr. HEFLEY. I think that is going to be difficult. Do you know

how many studies are out there that are yet to be completed?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that off the top

of my head, but I will be glad to provide that for the record.

Mr. HEFLEY. Okay.

Mrs. Christensen?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question

also for Mr. Doddridge on H.R. 146 and H.R. 182, because just last

week we had a hearing where the Administration supported a

study for the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home. Do you have some criteria by which you decide when a study would be permitted and

when a study would not be permitted?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Well, I think as far as the bill that we were discussing, that there are other prudent courses of action that we

could take. At the present time, until we exhaust those, I am not

sure that we really need a study at this point in time. Are we talking about H.R. 146, Congresswoman?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes.

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Okay. I think there is enough existing authority

out there right now for the Park Service to work closely with the

officials in Paterson, New Jersey, to make some progress. In fact,

there are $3.3 million authorized right now, subject to matching

funds. We, of course, would have to then go back to appropriations

to receive those funds, but I think a lot of progress could be made.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Well, I think you had the same objection to

both of those bills, but I am still not clear. Even though there may

be existing programs under which Paterson, for example, might get

funding, you use the moratorium and the need to complete studies

88

as the reason for your opposition, and I am still not clear what criteria do you use, since in the other instance the study was permitted?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. To tell you the truth, I am really not that familiar with the testimony on the Reagan Boyhood Home, but I will be

glad to answer that question for the record.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I guess my other questions would be for Mr.

Fisher and Mr. Clower. It is my understanding that there are some

unusual circumstances pertaining to the matters of this monument,

why grazing or hunting might be permitted; perhaps I see one,

keeping wildlife in check. Are there other unusual circumstances

why we should continue to permit the hunting or the grazing in

this area?

Mr. CLOWER. Madame Chair, I will try to answer that if I understand the question correctly. In this general region, there is the

INEEL, which is another government land closure area where we

have wildlife; and the wildlife there, the State is not allowed to

manage, and they have become increasingly a very large problem,

depredation, mostly elk, and back in the late 1980’s we had a large

number of antelope that caused a large amount of depredation

problems, and they stay in an area where they cannot be managed,

and at night they maraud out on adjacent farmland and cause a

great amount of damage to the crops, especially alfalfa, which is

grown in this area. If we are not allowed to manage the wildlife,

it becomes a burden on the taxpayers of the State of Idaho because

they have to pay for the depredation loss.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Fisher, you mentioned that there had not

been any safety problems with hunting in the area, where hunting

has been permitted. Would you anticipate any increase in safety

issues with the expansion of the monument? There have not been

any thus far, but now we are expanding the monument and hunting would continue in the expanded area. Are there provisions to

protect individuals or do you anticipate that the safety issues

would remain the same, even given the expansion?

Mr. FISHER. I do not view this as a potential safety problem. This

is a tremendously remote area that is basically roadless. The personnel that go into this area, they have to do so knowingly, and

I know that there has been no incidents in this area that had previously been allowed to be hunted on, and I certainly would not anticipate any in the future from the continued use of hunting in the

area.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Can I just reserve the balance of my time, if

I have other questions for the panel?

Mr. HEFLEY. Sure. Mr. Simpson, since these are your witnesses

here and we need to get them to an airplane, I would see if you

have anything you would like to ask.

Mr. SIMPSON. I am going to say, listening to the weather outside,

I am not sure the airplane is going to leave.

Mr. Clower, did not the State of Idaho previously manage the

wildlife in that area? It was the Fish and Game Commission that

set the rules and regulations and so forth, prior to this designation?

Mr. CLOWER. That is correct. The Department managed all the

wildlife in the State of Idaho, and we managed the wildlife in the

89

expanded portion of the monument. We have hunting seasons and

other regulations in place to manage the wildlife for the people of

the State of Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Doddridge, you suggested that the language— that you were concerned about hunting under the jurisdiction and

the laws of the State of Idaho, that you would like to see some language, alternative language, that includes consultation or something like that with the Secretary; is that correct?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. That is correct, Congressman, yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have that language?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Yes, we do. Do you want me to read it, sir?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, if you would, please.

Mr. DODDRIDGE. The Secretary shall permit hunting on those

portions of the Craters of the Moon National Monument that were

open to hunting before the issuance of Presidential Proclamation

7373 of November 9, 2000 in accordance with applicable laws of the

United States and the State of Idaho. The Secretary, in consultation with the State, may designate zones or periods where no hunting may be permitted for reasons of public safety, protection of the

monument’s resources, area administration or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribed in such restrictions relating to hunting shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agency having jurisdiction

over hunting.

Mr. SIMPSON. So this language would effectively put the Secretary in charge?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. I think I would look at it, sir, that it is really

putting both the State and the Secretary in charge. They would

have to consult and agree on what areas are to be opened or closed

if some such emergency exists.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Clower, what is your impression of that language?

Mr. CLOWER. I guess my first question, Congressman, is if it

came to an impasse, who would be the final decision maker?

Mr. SIMPSON. That is kind of my concern, too. If you have got two

people regulating something, who makes the final decision? That is

why I say that would put the Secretary in charge with that language, as I understand it.

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Well, the Park Service presently allows hunting

in 58 other units of the system, generally preserves and things of

that nature, and work cooperatively with State agencies in the portions affected. In fact, one of the other places may be in the State

of Idaho. It always seems that it works out that the Superintendent there works with the State, at least that is my understanding.

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Well, I appreciate that and I look forward

to working with you to make sure that we get this language, because I think the Secretary should have some input and oversight

over that also, and I do not have a problem with that, and I look

forward to working with you to clarify that, and maybe at the

markup in the Full Committee we will offer an amendment that we

can work out that will do that.

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We look forward to

working with you, too.

90

Mr. SIMPSON. I might also say, if I might, just for the record, Mr.

Chairman, the reason that the area relative to the Taylor Grazing

Act is in this legislation, it was brought to our attention by several

individuals who had talked with—you know this is talked with and

they told me and this kind of stuff—several of the ranchers were

concerned about the distribution of the fees under the Taylor Grazing Act, in that area that is administered by the BLM. The BLM,

the Idaho director, said certainly we will distribute those fees as

the Taylor Grazing Act says we should, and so consequently this

language is not necessary. It is rather redundant. I do not have

any problem with actually putting it in statute, because if at some

point in the future you decided to consolidate management of this

expanded area under the National Park Service, instead of the National Park Service and the BLM, in that case all of the grazing

fees would probably go to the National Park Service, I would suspect. Right now, those fees, according to the Taylor Grazing Act,

are distributed to the Federal Government, the local BLM and the

local grazing districts, to manage the land and so forth. So even if

it is unnecessary and redundant to have it in there, I do not have

a problem having it in there, and would just as soon have it in

there as not.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Any questions on this side? Any questions over here?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could, a quick question to

Mr. Doddridge. It is my understanding from his testimony that his

organization is seeking a temporary moratorium on new studies,

and the words seeking and temporary are of interest to me, obviously. Has this temporary moratorium been granted? Are we in a

moratorium status at this point? If so, what do we mean by the

word temporary?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. I think what we mean, Congressman, is that as

far as the Administration is concerned in our testimony before various Committees, that is our position at the moment. Unfortunately, as I mentioned to the Chairman, I do not have a full explanation of the word temporary or how long this is going to last, but

as I said, I did not think it would be prudent for us to continue

to come up here before the Committee and use those words.

Mr. SIMMONS. I thank the Gentleman for that answer. I would

also share with the Committee what has already been stated in

part, two years of work have gone into this project bringing it to

this point. The University of Connecticut has expended substantial

resources on studying the Eightmile River and have put out a publication, which is simply the tip of the iceberg. So in actual fact a

huge amount of work and money has already been invested in the

project. I cannot believe that this study would create such a financial burden to the Federal Government or an administrative burden to the Federal Government, that it would bring it to a halt.

So I look forward to working with the Committee on this initiative, sharing with the Committee and with the Administration all

of the materials that we have developed in the hope that this temporary moratorium will, in fact, be temporary and that we can

move forward on this important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.

91

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilchrest?

Mr. GILCHREST. Just a question to Mr. Simmons. Is the eightmile stretch of this river designated as wild and scenic from a State

perspective? Has the State designated this wild and scenic?

Mr. SIMMONS. The State has determined that the prospect of

wild and scenic status for this river is of sufficient priority that the

State has expended resources, but only the Federal Government

can provide this status under the Act, and that is why we are here

today. Only the Federal Government can help us.

Mr. GILCHREST. I understand the State of Maryland has an ability to designate a river wild and scenic under State regulations and

State law, and then, if you get on top of that Federal designation,

that emphasizes something a little bit more; but the State has—

I would hope that while the Department of Interior is negotiating

how long this moratorium will be, that the State of Connecticut

pursue this aggressively, because the bottom line is you are trying

to protect that river.

Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely correct. We do not have such language

at this point in time, but I will certainly share it with my colleagues back in Connecticut; and yes, we do not want to delay the

project, because there is development pressure in eastern Connecticut, and this unique resource could be lost to us over the next

decade.

Mr. GILCHREST. I wish you well; and Mr. Fisher, Mr. Clower, Mr.

Doddridge, you all had excellent testimony, and we will help Mr.

Simpson pursue what will benefit the Nation and the people of

Idaho. I just had a couple of quick questions. We talked about

hunting issues. Are there trapping issues in this area that was designated—the expansion of the monument; any trapping issues that

are similar to hunting issues that might be ensnared by this process?

Mr. CLOWER. In Idaho statute, trapping is just a subheading

under hunting, because we talk about hunting as pursuing and the

take of wildlife, so it is the same issue, Congressman.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is trapped there?

Mr. CLOWER. Coyotes would be trapped, if necessary. You also

have bobcat season. There are several other small furbearers.

Mr. GILCHREST. Wolverines?

Mr. CLOWER. No, sir. The Wolverine is protected in the State of

Idaho.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. And the grazing activity can be worked

out, since it does not seem to be an impact based on the expansion

of the monument, but for future use that might be beneficial for

those people who depend on that. Just out of curiosity, are there

any other predators for the antelope, elk or deer other than man?

Mr. CLOWER. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. Bobcats and coyotes

would be the number one predator out there for—for the antelope

or the deer, especially during this time of year when they are having their young, and there are a large number of coyotes in this

area, and coyotes are hunted year-round in the State of Idaho.

Mr. GILCHREST. It sounds like a little critter we have in Maryland called nutria; you just cannot get rid of them. Well, in all of

92

this activity, I wish all of you well, and we will work with Mr.

Simpson to get this done.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we

have witnesses, as you well know, that will be coming up, but I

must take exception, if I may, with the policy statement dealing

with the deferment, when I know what the funding has been and

how, in a bipartisan way, this Committee over the past few years

has come together to address the interests of all Americans. I have

to take exception with the policy, if that is a policy. We have before

us three bills today, all important, and I have supported wildlife

measures since I have been in the Congress; one from Idaho, one

dealing with Connecticut, one New Jersey; you might say that the

whole landscape, rural, suburban, and urban.

It is interesting that my plea before this Committee, and I cannot speak for Mr. Simmons, but knowing his testimony, understanding and hearing his testimony, we are talking about the center of economic development, and we are talking about precipitating economic development. This is the main purpose why we

both, for different reasons and in different places, come before this

Committee and humbly say that our history is laid out and it is

very, very clear. Just because we cannot compare—you know, I do

support a project dealing with hundreds of thousands of acres, and

we are talking about a very small piece of property compared to

that—nonetheless it does not diminish the priority. Nonetheless it

does not diminish, in any manner, shape or form, the significance.

So because we have not funded totally what should have been

funded, and we have not been able to keep up with maintenance,

is not the fault of the people on this Committee. I have to take exception with that policy, if it is a stated policy, because that means

it will, in many ways, fix the color of what is to come before this

Committee in the future. I would ask you to please consider what

we have stated on the record. I can speak for myself. I am sorry.

I did not mean to speak for Mr. Simmons—that you humbly consider what we are saying, because first of all it is either needed or

it is not needed and, if it is needed, we need to find a way to do

it.

Both of these bills are authorization bills. They are not providing—appropriating money. That comes in the next step, and to

be told at the very beginning that we should not even be here in

the first place, since you should know the policy, to me is a bit disingenuous, if I do say so myself, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, and thank the witnesses. We appreciate

you being here. I am sorry. I did not realize you had—I would recognize you.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I guess I want to understand better

this deferment, because it seems to me that the Great Falls Historic District, and I commend my colleague, Mr. Pascrell, for his

diligence in pursuing this and the work he has done to highlight

this, even in his earlier professional incarnation as mayor, it seems

to me that this district fills the bill for national historic landmarks

as well as any place I can think of, I mean, where significant

93

historic events occurred, prominent Americans worked and lived,

areas that represent the ideas that shaped our Nation.

I mean, this was the start, in many ways, you could argue, of

American industry. This was the site where America began its ascent to industrial and mercantile dominance in the world. It is also

a very beautiful sight. It is striking. It is one of the landmarks of

New Jersey, and New Jersey is the most densely populated State

in the country, and we have to work real hard to protect the treasures we have got. So I would hate to see this opportunity slip past,

because we are only asking for a study here. As I understand, that

is what the bill is.

So I would ask—Mr. Doddridge, I suppose, is the best person to

express this—what is the reason that you give for recommending

a deferral of even a study of the appropriateness of this site?

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Well, Congressman, the reason I gave is that until the Administration gets a better handle on the $4 billion

backlog of the National Park System, and how, keeping with the

Administration’s desire to eliminate that backlog within the next

four or five years, we have asked for a temporary moratorium on

designation of new units or studies. So it is really driven by the

backlog and our ability to try to get our hands around that backlog

and eliminate it.

Mr. HOLT. Well, the President, I am pleased to hear, has made

a commitment to appropriating money to deal with that, or to recommending to us appropriation of money to deal with that backlog.

The size of the study we are talking about, as I calculate it, is

about one-hundred thousandth of the amount of money that you

say is being considered here. For something as important to the

history of the United States and, I should say, important to New

Jersey, I think that is a small price to pay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, and I think these were good

comments. I would say to the Department, I commend you on the

one hand for emphasizing getting your arms around this backlog.

This Committee wants you to get your arms around the backlog,

too. I am a little concerned with a $4 billion backlog, it looked like

in your budget you are going to ask for $500 million. It is going

to take a long time over five years in order to get done, if that is

the rate we go at.

Secondly, even if we do not designate any more units, and I am

not saying we will not, but even if we do not designate any more

units to the Park System during this moratorium, I think you are

going to have trouble holding that policy of no new studies, because

it appears to me that we have some areas that we are going to lose

if we do not take some action. If we put them in a study area, then

we can protect them during that period of time. When the moratorium comes off, if you have done the studies, then we have a priority list of what you think is important to the units of the Park

System. So the idea that we will not ask you to do additional studies, I think, is a little far-fetched. The idea of whether or not we

will designate additional units under this moratorium, I think that

has yet to be decided, but I would just send that message back to

you and you may figure out some way that you can come to us with

some kind of a compromise on this.

94

Mr. DODDRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, you can be sure I will take that

message back down the street.

Mr. HEFLEY. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you Gentlemen from Idaho for coming all the way out here. We appreciate it.

We hope you have a safe trip back. I want to ask Mr. Pascrell if

you would introduce our first two members of this panel, and I am

going to ask Mr. Simmons if he would like to introduce the second

two members of this panel.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be my

honor and I appreciate again the indulgence of the chair and the

support of the members as we consider this bill. We have before us

Sue Merrow, who is the First Selectman of East Haddam. That

makes her the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer of that town.

That is one of three towns that are sponsoring this legislation. I

should also say that she has been very active in environmental

issues, so she brings a nice balance between the municipal interest,

which goes to taxes and goes to economic development, and the environmental interest, which, of course, for a small State like Connecticut is critically important. Then she is joined by Nathan

Frohling, who represents The Nature Conservancy. I think most of

the members are familiar with that national level organization. I

am pleased they are both here and I am excited to hear their testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two representatives from Paterson, New Jersey joining us today. One is an AnnaLisa Dopirak, who is the director of community development for the

city. Anna-Lisa has been working for the city of Paterson for many,

many years. She is a former mayor of the city of Paterson, and was

the business administrator when I was the mayor. So I am prejudiced. She has been working toward revitalizing the Great Falls

Historic District for as long as I can remember. She is an invaluable leader within the city government, Mr. Chairman, members of

the Committee, and I am thankful for her leadership.

Also with us today is Pat DiIanni, who is the founder and president of Vision 20/20, which is a community organization that provides grassroots support for the revitalization of Passaic County,

including the Falls District, and for the past several years Vision

20/20 has been a community leader on the issue of the Great Falls.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you and let’s deal with the Paterson issue

first, whichever one of you would like to begin.

STATEMENT OF ANNA-LISA DOPIRAK, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF PATERSON, PATERSON,

NEW JERSEY

Ms. DOPIRAK. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon, members of the

Committee. My name is Anna-Lisa Dopirak. I am the director of

community development for the city of Paterson. I am here today

on behalf of the citizens of Paterson to convey our support for

H.R. 146, the Great Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001. In

1791, Alexander Hamilton fostered the Organization of the Society

for Useful Manufactures. We call it today SUM. He did this

95

because he saw the need to free our young country from dependence on foreign manufacturers, and he knew that by harnessing

the water power of the Great Falls of the Passaic River, this could

be accomplished.

After the establishment of the SUM, the mill district evolved

over many years, and it was involved in such things as textile manufacturing, sailmaking, locomotive construction and the thing for

which we are most famous, the production of silk. The Great Falls

Historic District became a physical and cultural textbook of the

United States labor movement and its immigrant history, and it

continues that today. It mirrored the prosperity and the recessions

of the 18th, 19th, and 20th-century economic history.

For 150 years, the mills endured. Generations of families continued to work in them. But in the years following World War II,

major social and economic changes occurred in this country. In the

1950’s and 1960’s, the mills were seen to be obsolete, as people

moved away and manufacturing moved out into the suburbs. It was

believed that the item the mills could be most useful for was to become a highway right-of-way. In fact, the mill area was designated

to become a highway right-of-way. Acquisition and some demolition

was actually begun by the Department of Transportation of the

State of New Jersey, and only because a small group of dedicated

citizens saw what we were about to lose, did this change.

The small group of citizens was instrumental in 1970 in having

the Great Falls of Paterson, and the SUM historic district, placed

on the National Register of Historic Places. That stopped the highway. In 1976, as we heard before, then-President Gerald Ford came

to Paterson for the purpose of declaring the Great Falls SUM a historic landmark district. One year later, in 1977, the raceways and

the water power systems that made the SUM what it was declared

a National Historic Mechanical and Civil Engineering Landmark

District. Today, 2001, we are seeking a designation to become possibly a unit of the National Park System through a study which

would be funded by H.R. 146.

The architectural, natural and historic resources, as well as community support, are in place, we believe, to warrant consideration

of our request, and that is why we are here before you today. Since

the district’s designation in the 1970’s, the city has undertaken a

very proactive role to preserve its heritage. It has established a historic preservation commission. It has become a certified local government for preservation. It has worked with developers, both for

profit and not for profit, to rehabilitate, as well as to reconstruct,

sensitive sites within our historic district. Mills have been converted. Today mills have become residences, offices, private schools,

and a museum.

Our Federal partnership was established back in the 1970’s

when we were awarded a grant from the United States Economic

Development Administration for the early work in the historic district. Later, as it was said before, in the early 1990’s we established

a partnership with the National Park Service, and that partnership

continues today. We are going back to the United States Economic

Development Authority because we have recognized that one of our

most underrated assets is the Passaic River, and we have an application in to the U.S. EDA to assist us in studying the river, along

96

the entire length of the river, not just that part of the river that

traverses the historic district.

If the district becomes a part or a unit of the National Park System, we think this would be a very fitting tribute to Alexander

Hamilton. If you remember your early history, Alexander Hamilton

and Thomas Jefferson engaged in a great debate, should this country develop with an agrarian society or should this country develop

with an industrial society? We know that Alexander Hamilton won

the debate, and so we feel that this is why it would be a fitting

tribute. Today our country is well known mostly for its industrial

prowess.

Hamilton foresaw the national potential of the SUM historic district and its manufacturing base, and today the historic district

continues to tell this national story. The locomotives that were

manufactured here helped to build the Panama Canal. They also

helped to move the silver ore from Jerome to the smelter. Colt pistols, the gun that won the West, they had their start in the historic

district. In fact, the mill in which they were developed still stands.

It is in pretty bad condition, but we have stabilized it and we are

looking for ways to rebuild it to its original configuration. The

Wright engine, although not manufactured in the historic district,

was certainly manufactured in Paterson as part of its industrial

history. The Wright airplane engine, which powered Lindbergh’s

flight to Paris, was made in Paterson. It also supplied the parts of

the engines that the Tuskegee Airmen used. Ellis Island, so close

to us, our history of immigrants that came through Ellis Island—

they no longer come through Ellis Island, but we consider that a

major part of our history. In an odd way, the historic district even

has reached out to the rarefied world of art.

If you go today to the Metropolitan Museum in New York City,

you will see many exquisite objects that have been acquired by the

museum through the Rogers Fund. For many years, I visited the

museum and I never connected the Rogers Fund with the Rogers

Locomotive Erecting Shop from Paterson. In fact, when I inquired,

it was only through a bequest from that very same Rogers family

that that fund was made, and that particular heritage of the Great

Falls Historic District is available for everyone who comes to that

museum.

Just over 200 years ago, Alexander Hamilton himself came to the

Congress of the United States. He urged the Congress to establish,

as well as support, a national manufacturing center which had the

Great Falls as its focus. Congress did not heed his request, but Ladies and Gentlemen, the legacy of Hamilton endures today in our

historic district. So I hope you will give support to H.R. 146. It is

a fitting tribute to Hamilton, and I like to think it represents a

21st century manifestation of his original request to this august

body.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dopirak follows:]

Statement of Anna-Lisa Dopirak, Community Development Director, City of

Paterson, Paterson, New Jersey, on H.R. 146

Good afternoon Chairman Hansen and Honorable members of the Sub-Committee.

I am honored to be before you today to discuss the city of Paterson’s support for

97

the Great Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001. This is an important juncture

in the Historic District’s long history and the culmination of years of effort.

A CAPSULE EARLY HISTORY

In 1791, Alexander Hamilton fostered the organization of the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM) to harness the waterpower of the Great Falls

of the Passaic River so that the young United States could be independent of foreign

manufacturing. The mill district evolved over the years to include textile manufacturing, sail making, locomotive construction, and the production of silk. It became

a physical and cultural textbook of the United States labor movement and its immigrant history. It mirrored the prosperity and recessions of 19th and 20th Century

economic history. For 150 years the mills endured. Their products changed, and generations of families continued to work in them, but in the years following World War

II major social and economic shifts occurred.

A THREAT REVERSED

In the 1950’s and 60’s, highways and suburbs grew, and the mills and the Great

Falls neighborhood district were threatened. The mills were believed to have outlived their usefulness and their neighborhood became the designated area for a new

highway. Acquisition and some demolition by the State Department of Transportation began. It was only through the determined persistence and not always welcomed efforts of a small group of citizens that the Great Falls of Paterson and Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1970, and the highway was stopped.

In 1976, the Federal Government designated the 108 acres around the falls as the

Great Falls/Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures National Historic Landmark District. In 2001, the city of Paterson seeks designation of the District (GFHD)

as an Urban National Park. We believe the basic infrastructure in terms of natural,

historic, and architectural resources and community support is in hand for serious

consideration of national park status. The city of Paterson is committed to working

with our residents, Passaic County and its other municipalities, and the state and

Federal Government to make the Great Falls/SUM Historic District a unit of the

national park system. Therefore, we support H.R. 146, the Great Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001.

Since the 1970 designation as a national district, the small group of early historic

district advocates has grown into a large group of stakeholders. Patersonians may

not always agree on exactly how to develop the GFHD’s assets, but we all do agree

that the GFHD warrants a Federally supported review as an urban national park

candidate. The designation of the Great Falls as a unit of the national park system

would be a fitting Federal monument to Alexander Hamilton. Decades past his

death, he ultimately won the debate with Jefferson of industrial versus agrarian development for the United States. His view prevailed, and today our country is

known foremost for its industrial prowess.

PATERSON ACTS

Since the 1976 historic landmark designation, the city established a historic preservation commission, became designated as a certified local government to strengthen our local preservation efforts, and encouraged both for-profit and non-profit developers though multiple funding sources to rehabilitate and/or re-construct historically sensitive sites in the district. These include the city’s 1970’s restoration of the

Ivanhoe Wheelhouse, and the construction of the Upper Raceway Park utilizing New

Jersey Green Acres funds.

In the late 1970’s through the 1980’s, the City administered a USEDA Title IX

grant of 11.1 million dollars. This grant permitted the total renovation of the Rogers

Locomotive Erecting Shop into the 1st floor Paterson Museum and upper three

floors of office space. The city entered into an agreement with the Great Falls Preservation and Development Corporation (GFPDC) for the long-term lease of the

structure. Simultaneously, basic infrastructure improvements including design and

installation of street furniture, lighting and landscaping were completed. A new

open space, Cianci Park, was created on a former parking lot, and archaeological

studies related to these projects, and others, were completed. The restoration of the

facade of the Union Works Mill opposite the Paterson Museum was completed and

protected through a facade easement the city holds on the building that houses a

private school and day-care center.

Throughout the 1980’s mills became residences and offices: these include the

Franklin Mill (offices), the Essex and Phoenix mills (residences) the Ryle-Thompson

Houses (offices), and the Argus Mill (charter school). In 1991, the Port Authority of

98

New York-New Jersey was invited by then Mayor Bill Pascrell to prepare a study

on the economic development opportunities of the Great Falls Historic District.

Shortly thereafter, in 1992, 4.2 million dollars were appropriated by Congress

through former Senator Frank Lautenberg’s New Jersey Urban History Initiative

(UHI) funding program. The UHI funds are under the auspices of the National Park

Service (NPS) Mid-Atlantic Regional Office. The NPS staff has been working with

representatives of the city of Paterson (the Core Advisory Group) and organizations

and developers active in the preservation of the Landmark District. Project activities funded through the UHI are intended to provide a more formalized basis for

development. They include:

* design guideline for the GF/SUM National Historic Landmark District

* environmental assessment of the seven-acre ATP site

* preparation of the draft programmatic agreement for the ATP site

* condition assessment of buildings in the District

* Maxman Report—Historic Industrial Site Analysis ATP Site—

a pre-development assessment of the historic and archaeological

resources on the site and the feasibility of their retention (or not)

* public service and education in the District through the use of

AmeriCorps workers to undertake certain public works projects

in the District

* set-aside of district easement/rehabilitation revolving loan fund

* oral history project undertaken by the Library of Congress

American Folklife Center

* Making History—a community grant program awarded to local

individuals or organizations for historical, artistic and cultural projects

related to the UHI

At the same time as the UHI began, complementary development and planning

efforts continued. Work progressed as additional funding for the Colt Gun Mill stabilization was secured. Completion of the first phase of the stabilization included recording and palletizing storage of the dissembled stonework. A revised programmatic agreement for the ATP site pre-development and development activities

representing 24 months of consultation among signatories and interested parties is

drafted and awaiting further comments. The city continues to augment community

support of the planning process through a combination of organizational and planning functions. These include the formation and support of the Downtown Paterson

Special Improvement District (SID) (one of two SID’s) and the establishment in 1999

of a Downtown Historic District on the New Jersey and National Registers. Municipal applications have been prepared and submitted to the New Jersey DOT-TEA21 Program for the Upper Raceway Park and Rogers Locomotive Erecting Shop Enhancements.

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

The importance of Paterson’s river environment, the basis for Alexander Hamilton’s vision, has belatedly been recognized politically and is moving forward under

a grant application to the U.S. Economic Development Administration. If successful,

riverfront planning extending nearly the entire length of the Passaic River in

Paterson will be undertaken. At the same time, the City has submitted an application to the New Jersey Green Acres Program for the extension of a river walk along

the Passaic River, east of the Great Falls.

Support for a feasibility study of designating the Great Falls/SUM is not limited

to Paterson, nor should it be. Others will address the support of Passaic County and

surrounding municipalities, as well as the regional impact.

Just over two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton petitioned the U.S. Congress to establish and subsidize a National Manufacturing Center with the Great

Falls as its focal point. The request failed and the SUM chartered by the State of

New Jersey resulted. Today, we have in Paterson the legacy of Hamilton’s vision

and an opportunity for the U.S. Congress to reconsider his request in its twentyfirst century manifestation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Mr. DiIanni?

99

STATEMENT OF PAT DiIANNI, PRESIDENT, VISION 20/20,

HAWTHORNE, NEW JERSEY

Mr. DIIANNI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I would like to talk to you a little bit about Passaic

County, because I do represent Vision 20/20, which is a Passaic

County organization, established by the board of freeholders as a

non-profit corporation. The population of Passaic County is a little

less than 500,000. The lower one-third consists of old industrial

areas intermixed with suburbs, but the upper two-thirds has beautiful ridges, rolling hills, placid lakes, and most important, the

watershed for almost all of northern New Jersey.

We want to preserve that watershed by preventing the expansion

of development in that area. We want to make sure that it occurs

in the already developed southern part of the county, and in improving the southern part of the county. The national park would

be a very important keystone for the expansion and the development of all of Passaic County.

Let me tell you something about Vision 20/20. It has over 400

members. It has a board of trustees of 38 members; three of them

are Freeholders; five of them are Mayors; Vice Presidents of two

banks; the County Surrogate; professionals; business people; and

the County Planner.

Our membership is diverse politically, professionally, ethnically,

gender- and age-wise. I dwell on this structure of Vision 20/20 so

that you will understand that it speaks for all 16 municipalities,

since all 16 municipalities are represented on this body.

Recently, Vision 20/20 passed a resolution in support of

H.R. 146, and the idea of the Great Falls of Paterson. What has

happened recently is that the concept or the possibility of getting

a national park arose. There has been enough of an upwelling of

enthusiasm from almost all segments of our population, The Board

of Chosen Freeholders, which is the governing body of the county,

adopted a resolution—I think it was last Thursday—to support

this.

The mayor of Prospect Park faxed a resolution from Prospect

Park to my home at 10:30 last night. There are letters from a number of people, who are interested. We received a call yesterday from

the office of State Senator John Georgenti, who assured us that a

resolution has been or will be filed in the State Senate of New

Jersey, and I understand the same thing will happen in the State

Assembly of New Jersey. The business community is on board.

I spoke to a representative of the umbrella group that represents

four chambers of commerce in our community. They adopted a resolution unanimously in support of H.R. 146, and wished us well.

As I talk to people on the street from all sections of the county, because I do travel all over the county, the enthusiasm is encouraging. They understand that this is the first step in the revitalization of the area, which is sorely needed in our county. I understand

there was some question as to the feasibility of this park at the

Great Falls of Passaic County.

In Passaic County, we have many historic areas, and the park

would be the pendant on the necklace of Passaic County’s historic

areas. For example, we have the New Jersey State Botanical Garden at Skylands Manor in Ringwood; the Ringwood Manor and Iron

100

Works, which supplied cannonballs and other war materials to

Washington’s army; Long Pond Iron Works in West Milford, which

also supplied war material to Washington’s Army; and Federal Hill

in Bloomingdale was a signal station to call the militia companies

of northern New Jersey to defend the ridgeline, the first ridge of

the Watchungs. It was fortified by the then-Governor of New Jersey, and throughout the entire Revolutionary War, it protected the

important North-South Highway, which connected New England all

the way south; Washington’s headquarters at the Dey Mansion in

Wayne; the site of Lafayette’s headquarters in Hawthorne; the

Botto House, the only American labor museum in the United

States; Lambert’s Castle and Observatory Tower; Morris Canal

Park in Clifton; and the site of Washington’s crossing of the Passaic. With all these treasures, the Great Falls National Park will

be in good company.

We want to be partners with the Federal Government in celebrating in a meaningful way the cradle of America’s industrial

might. The residents of Passaic County will do and are doing their

part to help provide the sinew and muscle to make this happen.

All Americans ought to have an opportunity to visit, enjoy the

birthplace of America’s industrial greatness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiIanni follows:]

Statement of Pat DiIanni, Esquire, President, Vision 20/20

Good afternoon Honorable Mr. Chairman and the honorable members of the Subcommittee.

I hail from Passaic County, New Jersey, which has a rich heritage and a diverse

natural beauty. There are old industrial centers in the southern portion about 12

miles west of New York City. The northern two-thirds of our county has rolling hills

and ridges, a historic mining village, placid lakes and a watershed supplying potable

water for most of northern New Jersey.

HISTORY

There are the Great Falls in Paterson, the 3rd most populous city in New Jersey.

These falls are 77 feet high and the 2nd largest in the northeast. Paterson is the

1st planned industrial city in the United States. Former Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton foresaw the industrial capacity needed to make this country great

and in 1792 he organized the ‘‘Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures’’ to utilize the potential of the Falls to power mills along the Passaic River. The first Colt

Gun Mill, the Rogers Locomotive, the first Holland Submarine were all built in

Paterson.

A tale is told that during the encampment of the Continental Army along the Passaic River in Passaic County, General George Washington and several of his officers

including his Aide de Camp, Alexander Hamilton, picnicked at the Great Falls.

Twelve years later Mr. Hamilton, remembering the waterpower of the Falls, organized the Society for Useful Manufacturing chartered by the State of New Jersey

under then Governor Paterson

I understand that other testimony will be presented by other witnesses relating

to the historic central role Paterson, the Great Falls and the Historic District played

in the creation of our great industrial nation. However, I wish to mention a little

known story.

The First Ridge of the Watchungs, which overlooks the Falls, traverses Passaic

County from north to south. During the Revolutionary War this ridge was fortified

and manned by the militia companies of Northern New Jersey.

The fortified Ridge protected the Great North-South Highway located west of the

ridge. This ‘‘Highway’’ was the major line of communications available to the Continental Army connecting New England to the southern part of our fledgling nation.

The interdiction of the Great North-South Highway by British Troops then encamped on the Hudson River, a mere 15 miles east, may have proven disastrous

for the Continental Army.

101

PASSAIC COUNTY VISION 20/20, INC.

I come before you as President and spokesman for Passaic County Vision 20/20,

Inc. (Hereinafter referred to as ’’Vision 20/20′′. Passaic County Vision 20/20 is a nonprofit organization, incorporated in 1999 by the Passaic County Board of

Freeholders by unanimous, bipartisan resolution.

Our over 400 members from all 16 Municipalities are volunteers dedicated to improving Passaic County. The 33 member Board of Trustees and five alternates

include three (3) Freeholders, five (5) Mayors, Vice Presidents of two banks, the

County Surrogate, the County Planner, business people, educators and professionals. Our members are diverse, politically professionally, ethnically, gender-and

age-wise.

Our corporate mission is broad and comprehensive. It mandates improving the

economy, protecting the environment and preserving the history and cultures of

Passaic County. The corporation has undertaken more than two (2) dozen projects

as diverse as obtaining grants: (a) to install bike and walking paths, (b) to produce

annual multicultural events, and (c) to promulgate a County-wide redevelopment

‘‘Smart Growth’’ plan to conform to the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The establishment of a National Historic Park at the Great Falls is

one of our cherished hopes and a keystone for revitalization. Although we are

embarking on many specific projects, our ultimate goal is to make Passaic County

a better place in which to live, to work and to play.

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND ENTHUSIASM FOR H.R. 146 AND THE GREAT FALLS NATIONAL

PARK

I dwell on the structure of our organization to demonstrate to you, that we are

broad based and non-political. We are in a unique position to read the pulse of the

communities throughout Passaic County. We assure you of strong support for the

Great Falls National Historic Park.

Lisa Macioci, a trustee, and members of her Great Falls National Park Task Force

have worked assiduously over the past year and a half promoting the park concept.

They report favorable and enthusiastic support among residents within and without

Passaic County. The other trustees have noted similar expressions of support. Additionally, the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Passaic County has listed a resolution

in support of H.R. 146 for its next open meeting.

Recently a resolution was unanimously adopted by Vision 20/20 trustees to communicate with local, county and state governing bodies and to launch a petition

drive supporting H.R. 146 and the Great Falls National Historic Park proposal.

Many Mayors, County Freeholders and State Legislators strongly advocate

H.R. 146 and the Great Falls National Historic Park concept. Hopefully, resolutions

will be adopted prior to the closing of the record of the hearing. In this regard, I

respectfully move that the record remain open for a reasonable time after the conclusion of oral testimony.

The general public and especially business people see the Park as an economic

engine to spur the economy of Paterson and the entire area. The stakeholders of

the county perceive tourism as the major county industry of the future. The Park

will be a cornerstone for revitalization of the southern portion of the county while

relieving pressure on the environmentally sensitive northern two-thirds of the county and the adjacent Highlands region, presently the focus of some developers’ attention.

The Park has the wholehearted support of the business community, environmentalists, historic preservationists, and John Q. Public. In my travels around the

county, I have yet to meet anyone, who does not strongly support the concept of the

Great Falls National Historic Park. To the contrary, people wonder why the Federal

Government has forsaken this national treasure.

The Park is within two hours drive for tens of millions of Americans. Major railroads and highways crisscross the region surrounding the Great Falls. Interstate 80

passes within two miles of the site, The Garden State Parkway leads to within one

mile of the site. The New Jersey Turnpike gives ready access to the Parkway from

the south and from New England. New Jersey Routes No. 3, 4, 20, 46 and Interstate

287 pass within five miles of the Great Falls.

The Great Falls National Historic Park will not stand alone. Passaic County has

scores of historic sites nearby, not the least among these are:

The New Jersey State Botanical Gardens at Skylands Manor in Ringwood.

The Ringwood Manor and Iron Works which supplied cannon balls and other war

materiel to Washington’s Army.

Long Pond Iron Works in West Milford.

Federal Hill in Bloomingdale.

102

Washington’s Headquarters at the Dey Mansion in Wayne.

The site of General Lafayette’s Headquarters in Hawthorne.

The Botto House American Labor Museum in Haledon.

Lambert Castle and Observatory Tower in Paterson.

Morris Canal Park in Clifton.

Site of Washington’s Crossing of the Passaic River at Aquan-nock Landing in City

of Passaic.

With all these treasures in the surrounding areas of Passaic County, the Great

Falls National Historic Park will become the pendant in the pearl necklace of Passaic County, attracting tourists from far and wide.

PASSAIC COUNTY’S FUTURE

Passaic County, through the efforts of Vision 20/20, was recently awarded a grant

by the State of New Jersey to provide in-depth studies and to promulgate long term

plans for ‘‘Smart growth’’ initiatives throughout the county. The studies and plans

will address many aspects of county life in general and tourism in particular. The

Park will be central to these plans to rejuvenate the county. We foresee the rebirth

of the county similar to the Renaissance in other areas of the country, e.g.

San Antonio, Texas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Baltimore, Maryland, and many others too numerous to list.

We ask only to be partners with the Federal Government to celebrate in a meaningful way, the cradle of America’s Industrial Power. The residents of Passaic County will do and are doing their part to help provide the sinew and muscle to make

this happen. All Americans ought to have an opportunity to visit and enjoy the

birthplace of America’s Industrial Greatness.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Ms. Merrow? Okay. Mr. Frohling?

STATEMENT OF NATHAN FROHLING, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

Mr. FROHLING. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased and delighted to be here today and to

present The Nature Conservancy’s support for H.R. 182. As you

may know, The Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit

organization dedicated to preserving the plants and animals and

natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth.

We have over one million members and have protected over 12 million acres in the United States and Canada. We work very closely

with local communities and in strong partnerships with both public

and private landowners. Our Tidelands Program, which I direct in

Connecticut, seeks to protect key ecological areas within a 560-

square-mile region of the lower Connecticut River, this region,

again known as the Tidelands, has received considerable acclaim

over the last 10 years, being named one of the 40 last great places

in the western hemisphere and also being included under the international Ramsar Convention, among other recognitions. The

Eigthmile River is part of this area, and it is a top priority for The

Nature Conservancy.

It is rare to find entire ecosystems intact throughout their range,

especially on the East Coast. But the Eightmile River watershed is

one example, one last remaining example that we have, of such an

ecosystem; 85 percent forested, as is demonstrated by the map that

you see on my left. Picture that as a fall day, by the way, a lot of

orange and yellow there, a lot of fall colors in the forest; 85 percent

of this watershed is forested and it contains the largest

unfragmented forest region in coastal Connecticut. Nine thousand

103

four hundred acres of this watershed are in permanent protection.

That is about 25 percent.

The Eightmile River system is free-flowing, and the water quality of its extensive wetlands and watercourses is excellent throughout. From native brook trout to blueback herring, the river system

is a haven for fish, both in terms of diversity and abundance. It

contains globally rare species and has the internationally recognized tidal marsh, freshwater tidal marsh, at Hamburg Cove.

There are some other smaller things we do not often see, native

submerged aquatic vegetation and freshwater mussels further testify to the fact that this is a very healthy ecosystem.

It is also within the State’s elite in terms of the insects and

mayflies and beetles and snails, the things that we do not see, but

reflect a really special system. There is also the scenic beauty and

an abundance of recreational opportunities here that make this

highly regarded by the communities that live in this area, and as

a river on the nationwide rivers inventory, there is little doubt that

the Eightmile River system contains outstandingly remarkable values. The greatest threat to these is incremental, unplanned growth,

and while growth is inevitable, the question is whether it will be

managed to sustain the nationally outstanding values here.

Six years ago, the Eightmile River watershed project was formed

by local citizens and officials, the University of Connecticut and

The Nature Conservancy to initiate a new model for balancing conservation and growth within a watershed. Now, having expended

great energy and having generated considerable information, this

is one of scores of maps that have been developed for this watershed. Also, having witnessed tremendous community interest over

these years, we now look to support a community process of selfdetermination. A Wild and Scenic River study is the best vehicle

for achieving this goal, and that is because the process associated

with designation and the study process provides the incentive, the

structure, the expertise and the resources needed for the communities to come together and collectively identify the issues and

goals they have for this resource and to set forth the means for

achieving those goals. The study that we seek today is being sought

as much to facilitate this community self-determination as it is to

achieve the designation.

Wild and Scenic River designation would also offer special important protections that we in the local communities cannot otherwise

avail ourselves of, nor can we avail those protections at the State

level, either, I might add. Widespread support exists for the study,

as letters and newspaper endorsements will testify. The communities are ready to do their part. A small Federal contribution

through this study can leverage a very large local effort, and the

value associated with sustaining a national treasure.

The study would leverage the kind of volunteer, communitybased initiative that has been hailed for sustaining the fabric of

our communities, and I might add it would not require Federal

land acquisition, it would not involve Federal land management, it

would not become a Federal park. Time is critical. Not only is some

of the resource being lost every day, but the community’s determination, confidence and readiness is tied to the momentum that

104

has been created over the last six years. The people of these communities are looking for your support.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify in support

of H.R. 182, and I would be happy to answer any questions you

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frohling follows:]

Statement of Nathan M. Frohling, Tidelands Program Director,

Connecticut Chapter, The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity

to present The Nature Conservancy’s testimony in support of H.R. 182, legislation

to authorize a Wild and Scenic River Study for the Eightmile River in Connecticut.

The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to

the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than

1,000,000 individual members and 1,900 corporate associates. We currently have

programs in all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries. To date we have protected

more than 12 million acres in the 50 states and Canada, and have helped local partner organizations preserve 60 million acres overseas. The Conservancy owns and

manages 1,342 preserves throughout the United States, the largest private system

of nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and strong partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and lasting results characterize our

conservation programs.

As Director of the Tidelands Program, I lead The Nature Conservancy’s efforts to

conserve the Eightmile River system. The Tidelands Region, which includes the

Eightmile River and its 39,900-acre watershed, is a top priority for The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut. The Tidelands contains extensive yet globally rare tidal

marsh communities, globally rare and endangered species, and a regional landscape

that is largely intact. The Nature Conservancy recognized this area in 1993 as one

of the ′′40 Last Great Places in the Western Hemisphere.’’ The Tidelands were designated in 1994 as containing Wetlands of International Importance under the

Ramsar Convention and this area is recognized as one of the most outstanding areas

within the boundaries of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge.

I also serve as Co-Chair of the Eighmile River Watershed Committee, a group of

local officials and citizens charged with implementing the Eightmile River Watershed Project. The goal of this project is to enable the three communities, Lyme, East

Haddam and Salem, to balance conservation and growth in order to maintain the

integrity of the watershed. Passage of legislation to authorize a Wild and Scenic

River Study on the Eightmile River will significantly enhance community-based efforts to conserve the unique resources of this globally significant region.

The Eightmile River

The Eightmile name is based on the distance between the location of its mouth

at the Connecticut River and the mouth of Connecticut River at Long Island Sound.

Extensive wetlands and watercourses combine to form the 10-mile-long East

Branch, the 10 mile long West Branch, and the 5-mile main stem of the river. There

are other major tributaries such as Beaver Brook, Harris Brook, and Fall Brook.

The water quality throughout the river system is excellent. There are no known pollution sources. An old, minor source of potential pollution is the only reason the

State has not classified the river at the highest drinking water classification. There

has been no evidence of pollution.

The Eightmile River system is one of the most significant aquatic resources within

the Lower Connecticut River watershed and contains a number of outstanding and

remarkable ecological, historical, cultural and recreational resource values. Within

Southern New England, and particularly coastal Connecticut, it is uncommon to find

entire ecosystems intact throughout their range, particularly at the scale of the

39,900-acre Eightmile River Watershed. From species to natural communities to its

extensive wetland and watercourse system to its unfragmented forest, the Eightmile

is an outstanding national treasure.

Eighty-five percent of the Eightmile River Watershed is forested. Most notably

this forest habitat is largely intact; it is the largest unfragmented forest region in

coastal Connecticut. In total, about 65 percent or 26,000 acres of the watershed is

completely unfragmented and the remaining 35 percent are only sparsely developed.

The watershed benefits from a high level of protection. The State of Connecticut,

The Nature Conservancy, each of the towns, the local land trusts and others have

105

conserved 9,375 acres or 23 percent of the watershed. The intact forest of the

Eightmile River Watershed provides increasingly rare interior nesting bird habitat.

The Eightmile River is virtually free flowing throughout its extent. The only dams

of any significance have both had fish ladders installed. The River contains the various forms of aquatic habitat types such as pools and riffles, rocky whitewater sections, sandy and gravelly bottoms, waterfalls, and wide, slow sections. The riparian

zones are largely intact throughout the river system. The river is considered by the

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to be an exemplary occurrence

of one of Connecticut’s most imperiled natural communities—free flowing rivers and

streams.

The River system is a haven for fish, both resident and migratory. There is a

great diversity and abundance of fish species that use the river throughout their

various life stages. It is one of Connecticut’s best trout streams. The River contains

native brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout, plus minnows, suckers and

small-mouthed bass. Anadromous species include alewife herring, blueback herring,

sea lamprey, striped bass, and sea-run brown trout. Efforts are underway to restore

Atlantic salmon and American shad.

Two globally rare plant species are known to exist in the Eightmile River system,

Parker’s pipewort and Eaton’s beggar tick. The American bald eagle is also frequently found here. There are many more state rare species and habitats suitable

for supporting such species. Hamburg Cove at the mouth of the river is an internationally recognized freshwater tidal marsh community.

Along with these species and communities there are other key indicators of a

healthy aquatic system. Extensive, native beds of submerged aquatic vegetation

exist. Freshwater mussels are present and exotic mussels are not. One in ten American mussel species has gone extinct over the last century, and almost three-fourths

of the remaining species are globally rare. The Eightmile River contains both the

brook floater and eastern pearlshell mussel; both are protected by the Connecticut

Endangered Species Act. The Eightmile River is in the State’s elite for other small

aquatic organisms such as mayflies, damselflies, dragonflies, beetles, snails, etc.

Among several categories of insect life, the Eightmile exceeds all other sites according to state aquatic biologist Guy Hoffman.

The Eightmile River and the watershed are highly prized by the three towns

through which it flows—Lyme, East Haddam and Salem. The watershed is approximately one-third to one-half of the land area in each of these towns. It is a rural

landscape with great scenic beauty and offers an abundance of recreational opportunities. It is one of the best rivers in Connecticut for fishing and it supports boating

from canoeing and kayaking to power and sail in the river’s downstream sections.

Hiking, sightseeing, hunting, and nature observation are among popular activities

within the watershed at a number of State Forest areas, Devil’s Hopyard State

Park, and three large preserves owned by The Nature Conservancy that are all open

to the public.

Much of the watershed’s existing development is historic and well integrated into

the landscape. The river and watershed’s high quality defines the character of these

three towns. It is at the heart of the quality of life enjoyed by area residents. Economic interests also recognize this because economic vitality here, primarily tourism, is largely based on that quality.

The greatest threat to the special attributes of the Eightmile River and its watershed is incremental, unplanned growth. It results in landscape and habitat fragmentation, the loss of water quality, the loss of important species and natural communities, the intrusion of undesirable nuisance species, and obscures other qualities

of this region. Change and growth is inevitable; for example, East Haddam is one

of the fastest growing towns in the state. This issue is whether growth will be managed to protect and sustain the unique resource at the heart of this region. There

are other potential threats such as the diversion of groundwater for water supply

in distant towns or golf course irrigation that could leave the hydrology of the system seriously altered, especially during normally low-flow periods.

The Eightmile River Watershed Project and the Wild and Scenic River Study

About six years ago, the Eightmile River Watershed Committee was formed to

pursue the Eightmile River Watershed Project. The group was comprised of local officials and citizens, with the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System (UConn) and The Nature Conservancy providing staff support and resource expertise. The EPA Region One and Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge provided

funding. The project goal: balance conservation and growth in the watershed in

ways that ensure the long-term social, economic, and environmental health of its

communities.

106

The focus of the project thus far has been the development of educational resources to support good land use planning and thoughtful stewardship by local landowners. One of the first achievements was the signing by town leaders in December

1997 of the Conservation Compact. This was an agreement between the three towns

that committed each town to work together to protect shared natural and cultural

heritage.

Since that time, the thrust of activity has been in the use of computer-based geographic information system (GIS) technology to generate state-of-the-art maps and

resource information about the watershed. Collectively these materials helped make

it vividly clear just how unique and precious the Eightmile River Watershed is to

those who live here. The results were shown to various audiences in the community

through slide shows and presentations. They generated considerable interest and

support for further action.

The Nature Conservancy has worked closely with the Eightmile River Watershed

Committee, each of the three towns, community groups and individuals. During this

past year, we have collectively looked at how best to take the information gathered

and community interest generated to accomplish tangible on-the-ground results for

protecting the river and watershed. Together we have recognized that going back

to the communities to directly involve them in decisionmaking about the future of

the river and watershed was the best course of action and that a Wild and Scenic

River Study is the best vehicle for doing so. There are several reasons a Wild and

Scenic River Study is the best way to protect the Eightmile River.

—The Eightmile River has the necessary outstandingly remarkable values to be

eligible for designation.

—A Wild and Scenic River Study, and the process associated with it, provides the

structure, expertise, funding and facilitation needed for the communities as a whole

to come together and collectively identify the issues and goals they have for the resource, and to set forth the means for meeting those goals. This is the heart of the

matter; the conservation needed is most likely to come through community-based

self-determination. Despite strong interest, it is not likely that such a community

process will happen without the incentive of the Wild and Scenic River designation

process. As important as designation itself may become, the pursuit of a Wild and

Scenic River study now is being sought as much for the opportunity it provides to

support community-based action and self-determination as it is to achieve the designation itself.

—A Wild and Scenic River designation, if achieved, would offer important protections not otherwise available locally or through the State of Connecticut. Federally

funded or permitted water resource related projects that would have a direct and

adverse impact on the river would not be allowed under designation. There are several threats to the Eightmile where this may be important including, for example,

adverse water diversions.

—The Study would provide a greater level of scientific information than we have

currently, which might be especially useful for future decisionmaking.

—A Wild and Scenic River study represents the potential to bring in needed funds

to support the community-based process that has been identified.

—The Wild and Scenic River designation process would be built on local control.

The ability to maintain local control over land use decisions is key.

—The process would further facilitate coordination among the three towns.

There has been wide‘spread support at the community level for a Wild and Scenic

River Study and for potential Wild and Scenic River designation. A concern for the

future for the Eightmile River, a love of the Eightmile River Watershed area, and

community pride have combined with a recognition that the Wild and Scenic River

process offers an excellent tool to address these collective interests. Over 40 letters

from all levels of local government, community groups and individuals, including

riverfronting property owners, have been submitted requesting the Study. Leading

newspapers have carried editorials endorsing the Wild and Scenic River effort.

These are summarized in the attached exhibits.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 182. I urge

the committee’s favorable consideration of this important legislation. I would be

happy to answer any questions from Members of the Committee.

LETTERS REQUESTING A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY OF THE EIGHTMILE RIVER:

SUBMITTED TO CONGRESSMAN ROB SIMMONS

Town Leaders:

1. Lyme Selectmen; Ralph Eno, First Selectman

2. East Haddam Selectmen; Sue Merrow, First Selectman

107

3. Salem Selectmen; Jim Fogarty, First Selectman

Town Commissions:

1. Lyme Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission; Don Gerber,

Chairman

2. Lyme Planning and Zoning Commission; David Tiffany, Chairman,

3. Lyme Open Space Committee; James Thatch, Chairman

4. East Haddam Planning and Zoning Commission; Harvey Thomas, Chairman

5. East Haddam Economic Development Commission; Edward Thereault,

Chairman

6. East Haddam Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission; Randolph Dill,

Chairman

7. East Haddam Conservation Commission; W. Nic Damuck, Chairman

8. East Haddam Open Space Commission; Jon Modica, Chairman

9. East Haddam Historical District Commission; Will Brady, Chairman

10. Salem Planning and Zoning Commission; David Bingham, Secretary

11. Salem Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commission; George Ziegra,

Chairman

Community-based Committees:

1. Eightmile River Watershed Committee; Jim Ventres, Nathan Frohling,

David Bingham, Anthony Irving, Co-Chairmen

2. East Haddam Community Planning Group; Deb Matthiason, Project Assistant

Community Civic Organizations:

1. Lyme Garden Club; Janet Cody, Secretary

2. Lyme Public Hall Assoc., Inc.; Parker Lord, President

3. Lyme Cemetery Commission; Linda Bireley, Secretary

4. East Haddam Civic Association; Timothy Johnson, Representative

5. Bashan Lake Association, East Haddam; Bruce Fletcher, President

6. Salem Historical Society; Dr. Milton Clark, Representative

Riverfronting Property Owners:

1. Marilyn Wilkins, Lyme

2. Betsy Woodward, Lyme

3. Vivien Blackford, East Haddam

4. John and Barbara Kashanski, East Haddam

5. Jack Bodman, Salem

6. Andrew Zemko, Salem

7. Dr. Richard Goodwin, Salem

Town Residents:

1. Janice and Richard Anderson, Lyme

2. Mary Catherwood, Lyme

3. Leslie Shaffer, Lyme

4. Mary Platt, Lyme

5. Betty Cleghone, Lyme Garden Club member

6. Sebyl Martin, East Haddam

Conservation Organizations:

1. Lyme Land Conservation Trust; Anthony Irving, President

2. East Haddam Land Trust; Maureen VanDerStad, President

3. Salem Land Trust; David Wordell, President

4. The Nature Conservancy, CT Chapter; Nathan Frohling,

Tidelands Program Director

5. Connecticut River Watershed Council; Thomas Maloney, River Steward

6. Potapaug Audubon Society; Dr. Milton Clark, Conservation Chairman

Leading Newspaper Editorial Endorsements:

1. The Hartford Courant; November 2000

2. The Day; December 17, 2000

TOTAL: 43

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you for that testimony.

Ms. Merrow?

STATEMENT OF SUSAN MERROW, FIRST SELECTMAN,

EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT

Ms. MERROW. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the

Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Susan Merrow. I am currently serving my fifth term

as First Selectman of the town of East Haddam, and on behalf of

the people of my hometown, I come here before you today to urge

your favorable consideration of H.R. 182, to study the Eightmile

River for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River program.

We believe this waterway is of exemplary significance to my town,

to our region and to our State. To tell you a little bit about East

Haddam, we are a town of 7,620 people spread out over 57 square

miles that are bordered by the beautiful Connecticut River. We

have many things to be proud of in East Haddam.

We are home to the Goodspeed Opera House, a restored Victorian theater that sent such well-known musicals to Broadway as

′′Annie′′ and ′′The Man of La Mancha′′. We are proud to be the

home of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd. We have beautiful old

homes. We have a proud history of 19th-century water-powered

mills. We have two handsome State parks. We have beautiful

unfragmented forest, and we are very proud to be bordered once

again by the Connecticut River and the tidelands that Nathan has

mentioned.

Like any modern community, we balance these cultural and environmental resources against all the demands of a modern community, the need for a healthy economy, for jobs, for decent housing,

for finding the money to build schools, yet over and over again,

when asked, the citizens of my town speak out again and again,

asking us to protect the natural resources of our town. They do this

not just for reasons of nostalgia, but because we see it in our longterm economic best interest. We believe it just makes practical

good sense. We believe that our tourism-dependent economy and

we count as crucial to the quality of life that makes East Haddam

a good place to live require that we do no less.

We have embarked on a several-year planning process that has

at its heart the notion that our environment and our economy are

inextricably linked. We are actively planning as a community for

environmentally compatible economic development which acknowledges and enhances the unique natural and cultural attributes of

our town. We have invited our citizenry together to establish a list

of community values of things we hold dear as a town, and prominent on that list is protecting the natural environment.

All of this is by way of backdrop for my request of you that you

give favorable consideration to our wish that you support funding

for the study of what we believe is East Haddam’s most remarkable

natural resource, the Eightmile River. The main stem of the

Eightmile River rises in my town and flows through hemlock

gorges over a spectacular waterfall, alongside forest, fields and

farms as it finds its way to the Connecticut River. The Eightmile

River encompasses one-third of the land area of my town, and

through a combination of great good luck and the fortunate

117

foresight of our forefathers, the Eightmile River flows unrestricted

and pure through an almost completely untrammeled landscape,

which is a remarkable greenway. Significant stretches of the watershed are permanently protected by the State and by land trusts,

but most of the land is in the hands of private landowners. The

people of East Haddam have teamed up with the people from the

other two towns in the watershed to educate themselves and others

about this resource. Our theory is that if people know the resource,

they will love it, and if they love it, they will make good decisions

about it.

We have worked with The Nature Conservancy and the University of Connecticut to amass a very large database of information

about this river, about the forest and the wildlife habitat and the

water quality. I have joined the First Selectmen of the other two

towns in the watershed to create an agreement to work together

to protect this resource. We have signed a compact. You will find

a picture in this little booklet of the three of us signing the compact, which speaks of our commitment to balance conservation and

growth by ensuring the long-term social, economic and environmental health—and the vitality of our communities in the watershed.

I carry with me today the wishes and hopes of my colleagues in

the other two towns in this watershed. Support for studying the

Eightmile River for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River

program is broad and deep in all three watershed towns, from

boards and commissions, to civic groups to the land trusts, we

bring with us, as you know, today 43 letters of support from the

people of our region.

We feel very strongly that this is a very unusual and valuable

resource, worthy to be listed alongside the great rivers of our country. My community and the others in the Eightmile watershed

stand ready to do the work required to support a study and to

make use of the information that will be developed. Ours has been

a completely grassroots effort. We have brought our project a long

way and we offer you now an opportunity to leverage that effort.

We look to this program to help us take the next step, to help us

retain control of our project locally, to help build the partnerships

and to gain deserved recognition for this very special bit of unspoiled nature that graces my town and that we deeply hope will

do so for generations to come. Thank you very much for this chance

to speak to you today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Merrow follows:]

Statement of Susan D. Merrow, First Selectman of the Town of East

Haddam, Connecticut, on H.R. 182

My name is Susan Merrow. I am currently serving my fifth term as First Selectman of the Town of East Haddam, Connecticut, about 30 miles southeast of Hartford. For those unfamiliar with old-fashioned New England small town government,

the First Selectman is the Chief Elected Official, and in many towns like mine, also

the Chief Executive Officer. I know that Connecticut is commonly regarded as a bedroom community for New York City. It comes as a surprise to many I meet from

other parts of the country that eastern Connecticut is a remarkable swath of green

and surprisingly open, rural land between Boston and Washington. On behalf of the

people of my town, I come before you today to urge your favorable consideration for

H.R. 182, a bill which would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include a

study of the Eightmile River, a waterway which we believe to of exemplary significance to my town, our region, and our state.

118

East Haddam itself is a town of 7,620 people and 57 square miles, bordered by

the magnificent Connecticut River. We have many things of which to be proud in

East Haddam. We are home to the Goodspeed Opera House, a restored Victorian

Theater that sent such well known musicals to Broadway as ‘‘Annie’’ and ‘‘Man of

La Mancha.’’ We are proud to be the home of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd. We

have venerable old homes and farms, and a proud history of nineteenth century

water-powered mills. We have two handsome state parks. One of these, which is

called Gillette’s Castle, draws thousands of visitors from all over the world to view

the unusual stone mansion of actor William Gillette, made famous by his portrayal

of Sherlock Holmes, and to gaze down upon the Tidelands of the Connecticut River

as they stretch away to the south, toward Long Island Sound. These Tidelands have

been identified under the Ramsar Treaty as ‘‘wetlands of international significance.’’ We have three handsome lakes, large stretches of unfragmented forests, and fishable, swimmable streams. Like any community, we balance these cultural and environmental resources against all the demands of a modern community the need for

a healthy economy, for jobs, for decent housing, for funding to build schools. Yet,

over and over again, when asked to help town planners strike a balance between

stewardship and development of our natural resources, the people of my town speak

out clearly for preserving and protecting the natural environment. We do this not

just for reasons of nostalgia, but because we see it in our long-term economic best

interest. We believe that our tourism dependent economy and what we count as crucial to the quality of life that make East Haddam a good place to live require that

we do no less. We have embarked on a several-year planning process that has at

its heart the notion that our environment and our economy are inextricably linked.

We are actively planning as a community for environmentally compatible economic

development, development which acknowledges and enhances the unique natural

and cultural attributes of our town. Our planning process began with involving our

whole citizenry in establishing a list of community values, things we hold dear, as

a town such as our history, our education system, our tradition of volunteerism, and

our love of the arts and protecting the natural environment is prominent among

them. We have agreed as a community to take these values into account as we

weigh plans for future direction and development. All of this is by way of backdrop

for my request of you that you give favorable consideration to our wish that you

support funding for the study of East Haddam’s most remarkable natural resource,

the Eightmile River, for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system. The

main stem of the Eightmile River rises in East Haddam and flows through hemlock

gorges, over a spectacular waterfall, alongside forests, fields, and farms as it finds

its way to the Connecticut River. The Eightmile River watershed encompasses about

a third of the land area of East Haddam. Through a combination of serendipity and

the fortunate foresight of our town forefathers, the Eightmile River flows unrestricted and pure through an almost completely untrammeled landscape, a remarkable greenway. While significant stretches of the watershed are permanently protected from development by the State and by land trusts, most of the watershed is

in the hands of private landowners. The people of East Haddam have teamed up

with people form the other two towns in the watershed to educate themselves and

others about this resource. Our theory is that, if people know the resource they will

respect it, and if they respect it they will make good decisions about it. Toward this

end, working with our state university and The Nature Conservancy, we have

amassed a large data base of information about this river the forest resources of the

watershed, the development patterns, its water quality and more. We have learned

that our river is essentially free-flowing, has high water quality, excellent riparian

habitat, extensive fresh water wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation, healthy

populations of fresh water mussels and native and stocked trout, and it supports

a high diversity of fish species and healthy runs of migratory fish. On behalf of my

townspeople, I have joined the First Selectmen of the other two towns in the watershed in creating an agreement to work together to protect this resource. I and my

fellow First Selectmen from Lyme and Salem signed a compact which states in part,

‘‘ the Towns of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem enter into this voluntary Conservation compact that acknowledges our commitment to balance conservation and

growth by:

1. Protecting and enhancing the water resources of the watershed, including both

the quality of the water and the integrity of normal stream and groundwater flows;

2. Connecting and maintaining habitats and rural landscape throughout the watershed; and

3. Ensuring the long-term social, economic, environmental health and vitality of

the communities in the watershed.

I carry with me today the wishes and hopes of my colleagues in the other two

towns and their constituents. Those of you who have labored long in the fields of

119

government will recognize how difficult it can be to make agreements that span

political boundaries. ‘‘Home Rule’’ is practically carved into the seal of each of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities. Any agreement that suggests putting the interests of

a region first is commonly regarded with suspicion. In the case of this compact to

protect the Eightmile River, our citizens readily grasped the notion that since rivers

do not conform to political boundaries, neither can we think only of our short term

self-interest if we care about this river. Support for studying the Eightmile River

for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River program is broad and deep in

all three watershed towns. From Boards of Selectmen, to Planning and Zoning Commissions, to Wetlands Commissions, to Land Trusts even to Economic Development

Commissions and even the Historic District Commission in one town, our towns

speak with one voice about how strongly we feel that this is a very unusual and

valuable resource, worthy to be listed alongside the great rivers of our country. My

community and the others in the Eightmile watershed stand ready to do the work

required to support a study and to make use of the information that will be developed. Please consider these thoughts and wishes as you weigh the merits of

H.R. 182. Please help us to gain deserved recognition for this very special bit of unspoiled nature that graces my town and that we deeply hope will do so for generations to come.

120

121

122

123

124

Mr. HEFLEY. Do you have any idea how the private landowners

along the river feel? The people in town want it, but how about the

private landowners along the river?

Ms. MERROW. Well, we have made a significant effort to reach

out to private landowners. We invited all the private landowners

with personal invitations to public information sessions. Among the

43 letters of support today are letters from a number of those private landowners, and some of the support has come from surprising

quarters, from some of those old Yankees that we felt would be

highly suspicious of this activity, but they have embraced it and I

believe that we can say that we have very strong support from the

private landowners.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mrs. Christensen?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not really

have any questions. It is apparent from all of the testimony today

that both of the areas have put in a lot of time and effort over a

long period of time, to bring us to the point of H.R. 146 and

H.R. 182. They appear to have broad community support and they

certainly have a rich and varied history to justify the request. I

agree with you that even if there is a moratorium for however long,

that should not preclude us from having studies done.

I look forward to working with you. I think maybe between us

we may be able to work with the Administration to support these

requests.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have taken

enough of the Committee’s time with my questions and comments.

I think you know where I am coming from, and I appreciate the

courtesy extended to me and to my friends from eastern Connecticut, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Committee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Let me ask, Mr. Frohling, in your testimony, you indicated that

among its other attributes, a segment of the Eightmile River is also

an outstanding recreational resource. Could you describe in greater

detail the recreational activities that take place on the river, and

would Wild and Scenic River designation have an adverse impact

on the ability of the public to continue to engage in these recreational activities? Would the designation have any positive impact on the public future recreational use of this river?

Mr. FROHLING. It certainly would not have any negative impact,

and I think it would only have a positive impact, both again in

terms of the support for the local efforts, to continue to shape the

future of this watershed, to hold on to these recreational resources

that we currently have today, and to help expand public access to

some of the sites. I would say that if you can imagine a recreational opportunity, it is there on the Eightmile. The ones that

stand out—fishing is probably the most famous on the Eightmile.

It is one of the top trout fishing rivers in the State of Connecticut,

including particularly the native trout that makes it so desirable

to fishermen.

But you will also find the full range of boating activities, from

canoeing and kayaking both, to power and sailboating activities in

the lower portion of the river, which is wider and slower, but you

125

also have lots of hiking and biking and sightseeing and birdwatching and all the other kinds of activities. We even have

snowshoeing and cross-country skiing when the snow falls down.

There is just about any activity you can imagine, in the Eightmile.

Mr. HEFLEY. And it would continue to be, if this designation was

made?

Mr. FROHLING. Absolutely, and I think it would further encourage organizations like The Nature Conservancy when we are involved and working with willing landowners to protect land, to

make those lands available for public access, which we are beginning to do, and there are already a number of locations in the

Eightmile that are available to the public. There are two large

State forests. There is a State park. The Nature Conservancy also

has three preserves in the Eightmile that are open to the public,

as well, and it is through these sites and others, including land

trust properties and so forth, where the public can gain access to

the river for fishing and hiking and so forth.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, all four of you must be good witnesses, because you have convinced me that I need to go both to the

Eightmile River and to Paterson, New Jersey, to see for myself, to

see if you are telling me the truth. I could do that on the Eightmile

River better with a fly rod in my hand, I think. That would help

me understand better what the resources are there.

Do you have any questions or comments, Mr. Simpson?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, a couple, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, is most of the land on the Eightmile River currently

privately owned?

Mr. FROHLING. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Would there be any changes in the current use of

that land if this designation is made?

Mr. FROHLING. No.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. The reason I asked that is just

to show you there are differences between the east and the west,

to some degree. Whenever you start talking about Wild and Scenic

Rivers in Idaho, you had better run for cover, because we do not

want most of those designations because of the restrictions they

put on. But I understand. I have been there, and it is a beautiful

area and deserving of preservation, and making sure it does not get

degraded in the future.

About the Great Falls Historic District, I am wondering, as I read this testimony from Joseph Doddridge, in 1992, $4.147 million

in Urban History Initiative funds to be administered by the National Park Service were given to the area with an agreement with

the city to protect historic resources while fostering compatible economic development. Then, in 1996, the Great Falls Historic District

was authorized for $3.3 million in matching grants and assistance

to develop and implement a preservation and interpretive plan for

the district and permit development of a market analysis with recommendations of the economic development potential of the district. Has all that been done?

Ms. DOPIRAK. Actually, the latter part, we have not received that

money. That has only been authorized. It has not been appropriated. But we are still continuing to work with the National Park

Service on the Urban History Initiative.

126

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the reason the $3.3 million in the latter part has

not been received is that it has not been appropriated because it

required matching funds and those have not been raised yet?

Ms. DOPIRAK. No, I do not think so. I believe it just has not been

appropriated.

Mr. SIMPSON. Why do we take it from a National Historic Landmark to a part of the Park Service? I mean, does not the National

Historic Landmark designation protect the area?

Ms. DOPIRAK. No, it does not. It only gives it a form of protection

if Federal funds or State funds were to be used in a way that

would be detrimental to a protected resource. It does not provide

the kind of interpretation, preservation and educational activities

that we believe being a unit of the National Park Service would

bring to us.

Mr. SIMPSON. I guess the reason I ask that is—are we trying to

just put something into the National Park Service to make more

funding available for it, so that we can do some things? I mean,

is that basically the reason we are doing it?

Ms. DOPIRAK. I do not think I quite understand your question.

Mr. SIMPSON. Are we looking at making it a part of the National

Park System because that would effectively make more funds available to do some preservation that you want to do? Is that basically

the reason?

Ms. DOPIRAK. Yes, I think the study would lead us to that conclusion, and we believe it is only with the National Park Service, who

have superior technical expertise and resources available, to assist

us in making the complete story of the historic district known to

everyone and assisting us in the interpretation of our resources.

Mr. SIMPSON. I guess I should express some concern, and it is not

about this or anything else. In fact, I may support this fully. I do

not know yet. But we do have a backlog, as has been mentioned,

in maintenance of our National Park System, and there are areas

all over this country that you could designate as significant historically and so forth. You can go to Colorado and I am sure there are

mining areas that were significant. In Idaho, I know there are

areas where events occurred that are significant in our history and

so forth. If we are going to start adding all of these to the park system, are we going to soon run out of funds? I mean, when we have

already got a $4 billion backlog?

Ms. DOPIRAK. We think the Great Falls Historic District has a

different story to tell. I have been in the San Juan Mountains of

Colorado and I do believe that you have interesting stories to tell,

and I have seen these old mining towns which are literally baking

in the sun and they are not being protected, and they are deserving

of protection, but we believe that in Paterson, we tell the story

from the beginning of this country, and that is a story of national

merit. It involves very famous people and people who were not famous, and it is such a unique story that has such far-reaching significance to our Nation that we think it should be told. If I might

just quote, there was a very nice letter submitted to the Committee, and I would like to read one sentence. It was submitted by

Ed Smyk, who is the Passaic County historian. He says ′′the Great

Falls Historic District transcends parochial and State concerns, and

I do not exaggerate by saying that the continued preservation,

127

enhancement and interpretation of the district is essential to an

understanding of America’s industrial history,′′ and I think that

says it all.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smyk follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

[Additional materials supplied for the record follow:]

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, thank you, and thank all of you for your testimony, and I look forward to working on this legislation. My only

question is was it Colt, the gun that won the west, or was it Winchester?

Ms. DOPIRAK. I think it was Colt.

Mr. SIMPSON. See, I thought it was the repeating rifle at Winchester. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, we certainly cannot act on that legislation till

we get an answer to that. Thank all of you. It was excellent testimony and we appreciate you taking time to do it. This Committee

stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ