WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND COLONIAL 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AL\TD PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2650 TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN THE STATE OF 

NEW JERSEY AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 

H.R. 914 TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE 

RED RIVER IN KENTUCKY AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 2478 TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACQmRE AND TO CONVEY CERTAIN LANDS 

OR INTERESTS IN LANDS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT, PROTECTION, AND ADMINISTRATION 

OF COLONIAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 1471/S. 375 TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERs ACT BY DESIGNATING A SEGMENT OF THE RIO GRANDE 

IN NEW MEXICO AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 2815 TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER IN CONNECTICUT AS A COMPONENT 

OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 

76-008 

HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

AUGUST 5 AND OCTOBER 28, 1993 

Serial No. 103-46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-043601-X 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F . VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DELUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Melrico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califor;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KisH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F . VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West VIrginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., TenneiiSee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaji JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Melrico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

HEATHER HUYCK, Pro(essioMl Staff Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

TONY A MiTcHEM, Staff Assistant 

KURT CHRISTENSEN, Republican Consultant on Public Landa 

STEPHEN HODAPP, Republican Consultant on NatioMl Parks 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Republican Counsel on National Parks, Forests and Public Landa 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: August 5, 1993 ................................................................................ . Texts of the bills: H.R. 2650 .......................................................................................................... . H.R. 914 ........................................................................................ .................... . H.R. 2478 .......................................................................................................... . Member statement: Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Witness statements: Hon. William J. Hughes, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey ............................................................................................... . Hon. Harold Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Kentucky ....................................................................................................... . Hon. I:Ie~b~rt H. Bateman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Vtrgtrua ..................................................................................................... . Thomas Mills, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department 

Joh~T~~ds·: R"~gi~~~i.oi~~~; M"id:~A:ti;~t:i~ ·~gi~~·: N~ii~~~i" i>~k Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Alec Gould, Superintendent, Colonial National Historical Park, Yorktown, VA, and Patty 

Weber, National Park Service ..................................................................... . Jennifer Lookabaugh, deputy director, Board of Chosen Freeholders, 

Cumberland County, New Jersey .............................................................. .. Jane Morton Galetto, president, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice 

River and its Tributaries, Inc. . ................................................................... . Beth Norcross, director of legislative programs, American Rivers, Inc. . .... . Norman G. Beatty, vice president, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 

Williamsburg, VA ...................... .......................................................... .... ..... . David B. Norman, county administrator, James City County, VA ............. . Hearing held: October 28, 1993 ............................................................................. . Texts of the bills: 

H.R. 1471 .......................................................................................................... . s. 375 ................................................................................................................ . H.R. 2815 .......................................................................................................... . Member statement: 

Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Witness statements: 

Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut ............................................................................................... . Jim Baca, Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the 

Interior .......................................................................................................... . James W. Stewart, Assistant Director for Planning, National Park Service, Department of the Interior ................................................................... . Panel consisting of: Hon. James T. Fleming, Senator, Eighth District, Connecticut State 

Senate .................................................................................................... . Patricia M. DeMarco, secretary, Farmington Wild and Scenic River 

Study Committee, on behalf of Hon. Lowell Weicker, Governor, 

State of Connecticut ............................................................................. . George H. Sparks, director of operations, Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), Hartford County, CT ................................................. . Panel consisting of: 

Nathan Frohling, Farmington River Watershed Association ............... . Norman Rogers, Jr., chair, Farmington River Study Committee ......... . Beth Norcross, director of legislative programs, American Rivers, 

Inc .......................................................................................................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

3 

13 

16 

1 

18 

23 

28 

44 

55 

83 

88 

94 

108 

112 

119 

121 

126 

131 

119 

140 

145 

155 

167 

176 

182 

198 

205 

210 
IV 

Additional material submitted for the record from: 

Hon. Bill Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico: Prepared statement of Amigos Bravos, Friends of the 

Page 

Wild Rivers, Taos, NM ................................................................................. 190 

Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut: 

1. Prepared statement: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management ............................................... 223 

2. Prepared statement: Robert Tarasuk, Sandisfield, MA, representa- tive on Farmington River Study Committee .......... .......................... 224 

APPENDIX 

AUGUST 5, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Morie Company, Inc., Millville, NJ: Letters to Rep. Miller, Rep. Hughes 

Au::ti~thc[:y r;:~g c~:~i>~!:!!u~triii~:·NJ:··~tt;~·t;;··c~~~··v;~~ from Ernest Jolly, vice president, external affairs, regarding H.R. 2650 

OcToBER 28, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection: Letter 

in support of H.R. 2815 from Robert Moore, deputy commissioner, 

to Chairman Vento, including copy of House Bill No. 6925 ..................... . American Whitewater Affiliation, Phoenicia, NY: Letter, prepared statement and attachments regarding S. 1332 .................................................. . American Canoe Association, Springfield, VA: Prepared statement of 

David E. Jenkins, director, conservation and public policy, regarding 

H.R. 2815 ...................................................................................................... . 

227 

235 

237 

244 

254 
H.R. 2650, TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF THE 

MAURICE RIVER AND ITS TRffiUTARIES IN 

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 

H.R. 914, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE RED RIVER IN KENTUCKY 

AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

H.R. 2478, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF 

THE INTERIOR TO ACQUIRE AND TO CONVEY CERTAIN LANDS OR INTERESTS IN 

LANDS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT, 

PROTECTION, AND ADM.INISTRATION OF 

COLONIAL NATIONAL IDSTORICAL PARK, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will come to order. 

We have a vote, but I understand we have a few minutes and 

Congressman Hughes indicated that he had another committee to 

chair. 

We are considering three bills this morning, the Maurice River 

and Tributaries, a major bill by Congressman Hughes; several pro-

(1) 
2 

posals submitted by Congressman Rogers; and, finally, Congressman Bateman's bill on modifications of land policies, concerning 

sewer transfer. 

I will dispense with my statement. 

All statements, without objection, will be made a part of the 

record in their entirety. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BRUCE F. VENTO 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands will come to 

order. As members have been advised, we are meeting this morning for a hearing on three separate bills. 

Two of the bills would designate certain river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. They are H.R. 914, by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, dealing with the Red River in that State, and H.R. 2650, by our colleague 

from New Jersey, Mr. Hughes, which covers the Maurice River and some of its tributaries, in the southern portion of New Jersey's Pine Barrens Region. The third bill, H.R. 24 78, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bateman, would add 16 acres to Colonial National Historical Park in order to protect 

from encroaching development the Colonial Parkway that links Jamestown, Yorktown, and Williamsburg. The bill also would authorize the National Park Service 

to turn over a sewer system to York County, Virginia. 

The bills, and background information, are before each member, so I will dispense 

with further description of them at this time, and will recognize other members who 

may wish to make opening remarks before we hear from our witnesses. 

[Texts of the bills, H.R. 2650, H.R. 914, and H.R. 2478, follow:] 
3 

I 

103nCONGRESS H R 2650 1ST SESSION • • 

To designate portions of the Maurice River and its tributaries in the State 

of New Jersey as components of the National Wlld and Scenic Rivers Systems. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 1993 

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

Committee on Natural· &sources 

A BILL 

To designate portions of the Maurice River and its tributaries in the State of New Jersey as components of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that--

5 (1) the Maurice River and its tributaries, 

6 Menantico Creek, the Manumuskin River, and 

7 Muskee Creek, are eligible for inclusion into the Na8 tional Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the segments 

9 and their classifications being as follows-
4 

2 

1 (A) the Maurice River, lower segment, 

2 from the United States Geological Survey Sta3 tion at Shellpile to Route 670 Bridge at 

4 Mauricetown, approximately 7.0 miles, as a rec5 reational river; 

6 (B) the Maurice River, middle segment, 

7 from Route 670 Bridge at Mauricetown to 3.6 

8 miles upstream (at drainage ditch just up9 stream of Fralinger Farm), approximately 3.8 

10 miles as a scenic river; 

11 (C) the Maurice River, middle segment, 

12 from the drainage ditch just upstream of 

13 Fralinger Farm to one-half mile upstream from 

14 the United States Geological Survey Station at 

15 Burcham Farm, approximately 3.1 miles, as a 

16 recreational river; 

17 (D) the Maurice River, upper segment, 

18 from one-half mile upstream from the United 

19 States Geological Survey Station at Burcham 

20 Farm to the south side of the Millville sewage 

21 treatment plant, approximately 3.6 miles, as a 

22 scenic river; 

23 (E) the Menantico Creek, lower segment, 

24 from its confluence with the Maurice River to 

•HR Z6IIO m 
5 

3 

1 the Route 55 Bridge, approximately 1.4 miles, 

2 as a recreational river; 

3 (F) the Menantico Creek, upper segment, 

4 from the Route 55 Bridge to the base of the 

5 Impoundment at Menantico Lake, approxi6 mately 6.5 miles, as a scenic river; 

7 (G) the Manumuskin River, lower segment, 

8 from its confluence with the Maurice River to 

9 2.0 miles upstream, as a recreational river; 

10 (H) the Manumuskin River, upper seg11 ment, from 2.0 miles upstream from its con12 fluence with the Maurice River to headwaters 

13 near Route 557, approximately 12.3 miles, as a 

14 scenic river; and 

15 (I) the Muskee Creek from its confluence 

16 to the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Line 

17 Railroad bridge, approximately 2. 7 miles, as a 

18 scenic river; 

19 (2) a resource assessment of the Maurice River 

20 and its tributaries, Menantico Creek, the 

21 Manumuskin River, and the Muskee Creek shows 

22 that the area possesses numerous outstandingly re23 markable natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational 

24 resources that are significant at the local, regional, 

25 and international levels, including rare plant and 

•BR 1850 m 
6 

4 

1 animal species and critical habitats for birds migrat2 ing to and from the north and south hemispheres; 

3 and 

4 (3) a river management plan for the river sys5 tern has been developed by the Cumberland County 

6 Department of Planning and Development and 

7 adopted by the Maurice River Township, Commer8 cial Township, and the City of Millville that would 

9 meet the requirements of section 6(c) of the Wild 

10 and Scenic Rivers Act, the City of Vineland has 

11 adopted a master plan which calls for river planning 

12 and management and is in the process of adopting 

13 zoning ordinances to implement their plan, and 

14 Buena Vista Township in Atlantic County has 

15 adopted a land use plan consistent with the Pine16 lands Comprehensive Plan which is more restrictive 

17 than the Cumberland County local river manage18 ment plan. 

19 (b) PuRPOSEs.-The purposes of this Act are to20 ( 1) declare the importance and irreplaceable re21 source values of the Maurice River and its tribu22 taries to water quality, human health, traditional 

23 economic activities, ecosystem integrity, biotic diver24 sity, fish and wildlife, scenic open space and recre25 ation and protect such values through designation of 

•BR 18110 m 
7 

5 

1 the segments as components of the National Wild 

2 and Scenic Rivers System; and 

3 (2) recognize that the Maurice River System 

4 will continue to be threatened by major development 

5 and that land use regulations of the individual local 

6 political jurisdictions through which the river seg7 ments pass cannot alone provide for an adequate 

8 balance between conservation of the river's resources 

9 and commercial and industrial development; and 

10 (3) recognize that segments of the Maurice 

11 River and its tributaries additional to those des12 ignated under this Act are eligible for potential des13 ignation at some point in the near future. 

14 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 3(a) of the Wild and Sce16 nic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding 

17 the following new paragraphs at the end thereof: 

18 "( ) THE MAURICE RIVER, MIDDLE SEGMENT.-

19 From Route 670 Bridge at Mauricetown to 3.6 miles up20 stream (at drainage ditch just upstream of Fralinger 

21 Farm), approximately 3.8 miles to be administered by the 

22 Secretary of the Interior as a scenic river. 

23 "( ) THE MAURICE RIVER, MIDDLE SEGMENT.-

24 From the drainage ditch just upstream of Fralinger Farm 

25 to one-half mile upstream from the United States Geologi-

•DR 18110 m 
8 

6 

1 cal Survey Station at Burcham Farm, approximately 3.i 

2 miles, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

3 as a recreational river. 

4 "( ) THE MAURICE RivER, UPPER SEGMENT.-

5 From one-half mile upstream from the United States Geo6 logical Survey Station at Burcham Farm to the south side 

7 of the Millville sewage treatment plant, approximately 3.6 

8 miles, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

9 as a scenic river. 

10 "( ) THE MENANTICO CREEK, LOWER SEGMENT.-

11 From its confluence with the Maurice River to the Route 

12 55 Bridge, approximately 1.4 miles, to be administered by 

13 the Secretary of the Interior as a recreational river. 

14 "( ) THE MEN.ANTICO CREEK, UPPER SEGMENT.-

15 From the Route 55 Bridge to the base of the impound16 ment at Menantico Lake, approximately 6.5 miles, to be 

17 administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a scenic 

18 river. 

19 "( ) MA.NuMUSKIN RIVER, LOWER SEGMENT.-

20 From its confluence with the Maurice River to a point 2.0 

21 miles upstream, to be administered by the Secretary of 

22 the Interior as a recreational river. 

23 "( ) MA.NuMUSKIN RivER, UPPER SEGMENT.-

24 From a point 2.0 miles upstream from its confluence with 

25 the Maurice River to its headwaters near Route 557, 

•DR 18110 m 
9 

7 

1 aproximately 12.3 miles, to be administered by the Sec2 retary of the Interior as a scenic river. 

3 "( ) MUSKEE CREEK, NEW JERSEY.-From its 

4 confluence with the Maurice River to the Pennsylvania 

5 Seashore Line Railroad Bridge, approximately 2. 7 miles, 

6 to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a 

7 scenic river.". 

8 SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT. 

9 (a) DUTIES OF SECRETARY.-The Secretary of the 

10 Interior shall manage the river segments designated as 

11 components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys12 tern by this Act through cooperative agreements with the 

13 political jurisdictions within which such segments pass, 

14 pursuant to section lO(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

15 Act, and in consultation with such jurisdictions, except 

16 that publicly-owned lands within the boundaries of such 

17 segments shall continue to be managed by the agency hav18 ing jurisdiction over such lands. 

19 (b) AGREEMENTS.-(!) Cooperative agreements for 

20 management of the river segments referred to in sub21 section (a) shall provide for the long-term protection, pres22 ervation, and enhancement of such segments and shall be 

23 consistent with the comprehensive management plan for 

24 such segments to be prepared by the Secretary of the Inte25 rior pursuant to section 3(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

•HR 111110 m 
10 

8 

1 Act and with the local river management plans prepared 

2 by appropriate local political jurisdictions in coi\)unction 

3 with the Secretary of the Interior. 

4 (2) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with 

5 appropriate representatives of local political jurisdictions 

6 and the State of New Jersey, shall review local river man7 agement plans described in paragraph (1) to assure that 

8 their proper implementation will protect the values for 

9 which the river segments described in section 2 were des10 ignated as components of the National Wild and Scenic 

11 Rivers System. If after such review the Secretary deter12 mines that such plans and their implementing local zoning 

13 ordinances meet the protection standards specified in sec14 tion 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, then such 

15 plans shall be deemed to constitute "local zoning ordi16 nances" and each township and other incorporated local 

17 jurisdiction covered by such plans shall be deemed to con18 stitute a "village" for the purposes of section 6(c) (prohib19 iting the acquisition of lands by condemnation) of the Wild 

20 and Scenic Rivers Act. 

21 (3) The Secretary of the Interior shall biennially re22 view compliance with the local river management plans de23 scribed in paragraph ( 1) and shall promptly report to the 

24 Committee on Natural Re~ources of the United States 

25 House of Representatives and to the Committee on En-

•BR 18110 m 
11 

9 

1 ergy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate 

2 any deviation from such which would result in any diminu3 tion of the values for which the river segment concerned 

4 was designated as a component of the National Wild and 

5 Scenic Rivers System. 

6 (c) PLANNING AsSISTANCE.-The Secretary of the 

7 Interior may provide planning assistance to local political 

8 subdivisions of the State of New Jersey through which 

9 flow river segments that are designated as components of 

10 the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and may 

11 enter into memoranda of understanding or cooperative 

12 agreements with officials or agencies of the United States 

13 or the State of New Jersey to ensure that Federal and 

14 State programs that could affect such segments are car15 ried out in a manner consistent with the Wild and Scenic 

16 Rivers Act and applicable river management plans. 

17 (d) SEGMENT ADDITIONS.-The Secretary of the ln18 terior is encouraged to continue to work with the local mu19 nicipalities to negotiate agreement and support for der-· 

20 ignating those segments of the Maurice River and its trib21 utaries which were found eligible for designation pursuant 

22 to Public Law 100-33 and were not designated pursuant 

23 to this Act (hereinafter referred to as "additional eligible 

24 segments"). For a period of 3 years after the date of en25 actment of this Act, the provisions of the Wild and Scenic 
12 

10 

1 Rivers Act applicable to segments included in section 5 

2 of that Act shall apply to the additional eligible segments. 

3 The Secretary of the Interior is directed to report to the 

4 appropriate congressional committees within 3 years after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act on the status of discus6 sions and negotiations with the local municipalities and 

7 on recommendations toward inclusion of additional river 

8 segments into the National WJld and Scenic Rivers 

9 System. 

10 (e) APPROPRIATIONS.-For the purposes of the seg11 ment described by subsection (a), there are authorized to 

12 be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to cany 

13 out the provisions of this Act. 

0 

•BR 118110 m 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

13 

H.R.914 

I 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments 

of the Red River in Kentucky as components of the national wild and 

scenic rivers system, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 1993 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic' River8 Act to designate 

certain segments of the Red River in Kentucky as components of 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 "Red River Designation 

5 Act of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that-
14 

2 

1 (1) the natural, scenic, and recreational quali2 ties of the Red River in Kentucky are unique and ir3 replaceable resources; and 

4 (2) the majority of the Red River corridor is 

5 within the Red River National Geologic area, which 

6 contains sedimentary rock formations unique to 

7 Kentucky and the United States, and should there8 fore be preserved for public el\ioymei:J.t. 

9 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF RIVER. 

10 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

11 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing new paragraph: 

13 "( )(A) RED RIVER, KENTUCKY.-The 19.4-mile seg14 ment of the Red River extending from the Highway 746 

15 Bridge to the School House Branch, to be administered 

16 by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following classes: 

17 "(i) The 9.1-mile segment known as the 'Upper 

18 Gorge' from the Highway 746 Bridge to Swift Camp 

19 Creek, as a wild river. This segment is identified as 

20 having the same boundary as the Kentucky Wild 

21 River. 

22 "(ii) The 10.3-mile segment known as the 

23 'Lower Gorge' from Swift Camp Creek to the School 

24 House Branch, as a recreational river. The boundary 

25 of this segment is a line that is 300 feet north and 

•DR eu m 
15 

3 

1 parallel to the north edge of roads 23, 77, and 715, 

2 except for the section between Greasy Branch and 

3 Bell Branch where the boundary is the south edge 

4 of Route 715. On the southern side, the boundary 

5 is a line that is 800 feet, and parallel to the south6 ern edge of the river. 

7 "(B)(i) Notwithstanding the 100 acre limitation con8 tained in section 6(a), upon receipt from the owner of an 

9 offer to sell any lands or interest in lands within the 

10 boundaries of any segment designated by this paragraph, 

11 the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire such 

12 · lands or interest in lands. 

13 "(ii) The Secretary of Agriculture may not acquire 

14 by condemnation privately owned land or interest in land 

15 within the authorized boundaries of any segment des16 ignated by this paragraph unless the Secretary finds that 

17 the use of the land has changed substantially after the 

18 effective date of a development plan for that segment pre19 pared pursuant to section 3(b) of this Act. 

20 " (C) There are authorized to be appropriated such 

21 sums as are necessary to carry out this paragraph.". 

0 

•DR eto& m 
l03n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

16 

H.R.2478 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and to convey certain 

lands or interests in lands to improve the management, protection, and 

administration of Colonial National Historical Park, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUl\"'E 22, 1993 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and 

to convey certain lands or interests in lands to improve 

the management, protection, and administration of Colonial National Historical Park, 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. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby 

4 authorized to grant within the County of York, Virginia, 

5 perpetual easements, or a fee simple interest in land, in6 eluding any improvements or structures, to the County of 

7 York, Virginia, without any reimbursement, charge or fee, 

8 subject to such conditions as are determined by the Sec-
17 

2 

1 retary to be necessary for the protection of Federal inter2 ests, for rights-of-way through, over, or under the lands 

3 of Colonial National Historical Park, now or hereafter ac4 quired, for the purposes of operating sewage.-disposal 

5 systems. 

6 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 

7 June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1208, 16 U.S.C. 81b et seq.), 

8 limiting the average width of the Colonial Parkway, the 

9 Secretary of the Interior is authorized to include within 

10 the boundaries of Colonial National Historical Park and 

11 acquire by donation, exchange, or purchase with donated 

12 or appropriated funds, the lands or interests in lands de13 scribed as Lots 30 to 48, inclusive, that portion of Lot 

14 49 that is 200 feet in width from the existing boundary 

15 of Colonial National Historical Park, and a 3.2-acre ar16 chaeological site, as shown on the plats titled "Page Land17 ing At Jamestown being a subdivision of property of Neck 

18 0 Land Limited Partnership" dated June 21, 1989, 

19 Sheets 2 and 3 of 3 sheets and bearing National Park 

20 Service Drawing Number 333.80031., and all or a portion 

21 of the adjoining lot number 11 of the Neck 0 Land Hun22 dred Subdivision, with or without improvements. 

23 SEC. 3. There are hereby authorized to be appro24 priated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

25 provisions of this Act. 

0 

DR 1478 m 
18 

Mr. VENTO. With that, let me recognize Congressman Hughes, 

the sponsor of the Maurice River legislation. I would like to give 

you a lot of credit for this. It is a major accomplishment and, obviously, there is a lot of consensus, as indicated by the administration's positive testimony and the number of constituents that are 

here today to make their presentation. 

Congressman Hughes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. HUGHES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me thank you for scheduling this particular hearing before recess. I know your schedule was crowded, you are one 

of the busiest Members of the Congress with legislation you move 

through this body and I thank you very, very much. 

This measure, H.R. 2650, Mr. Chairman, is really a significant 

development for our region. People think of New Jersey as what 

they see in the turnpike, various exits, but we have some beautiful 

parts of New Jersey and this is one of them. 

The Maurice River, and its tributaries, which forms some of the 

35 miles that would receive wild and scenic river protection in this 

bill is a magnificent area, with all kinds of wildlife, endangered 

species, with bald eagle nesting areas and habitat that is just gorgeous beyond description. Perhaps one of the best kept secrets in 

our region, and it has been a long struggle since the bill was initially introduced to attempt to protect this very beautiful area. 

Southern New Jersey, which is my home and my district, is unquestionably experiencing tremendous growth. One of our major arteries empties out right at the base of the Maurice River, and we 

can expect a population explosion in the years ahead. 

I have no doubt but that it would not be too many years in the 

future but that these rivers would be despoiled like so many other 

rivers in New Jersey and throughout the country. 

I also have no doubt that four sister cities in northern New Jersey could go back 100 years, 125 years, and do some of the planning that we are now doing trying to protect our majestic rivers 

and our natural resources, they would do it all over again. They 

don't have that opportunity, because urban sprawl, unfortunately, 

has despoiled much of what was natural beauty in the northern 

part of our State and even the central part of our State. We have 

that opportunity. 

All the municipalities now that would be impacted by wild and 

scenic river designations have signed onto this legislation. It has 

been a tough process and it came about because of a lot of citizen 

support. 

Right behind me are the leaders basically in that effort, Citizens 

United, Jane Galetto; Don Fauerbach, in particular; and Jennifer 

Lookabaugh, who is one of our county commissioners, we call them 

freeholders, are among the leaders really to put together this consensus. And as late as the July recess, we were still attempting to 

get municipalities on board, because the original commitment was 

that we would get local support, we would have to have a local 

management plan, locally administered, that was the only way that 
19 

we could get if kind of consensus that we have achieved in this legislation. 

Mr. Chainnan, this is a significant piece of legislation. Perhaps 

one of the most important initiatives I have been involved in my 

19 years in the Congress. There is no question in my mind that future generations will look back on this as perhaps one of the landmark decisions we have made in the southern part of our State to 

protect what we love about southern New Jersey. 

And, Mr. Chainnan, I can't thank you enough for your help and 

your guidance and your staff in getting us to this particular point. 

I know that the people of my entire State will be eternally grateful 

for the efforts that we are attempting to achieve through H.R. 

2650. So, again, I thank you. 

I have more fully in my written statement, set forth a number 

of other aspects of this legislation which I know the Chair has read 

and understands. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:] 
20 

STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. HUGHES 

HEARING BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ON 

H.R. 2650, LEGISLATION TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF 

THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN NEW JERSEY 

AS COMPONENrS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEMS 

THANK YOU FOR CONVENING THIS HEARING MR. CHAIRMAN. I 

GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS TO 

TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2650, LEGISLATION WHICH I .INTRODUCED 

TO DESIGNATE SOME 35 MILES OF THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS 

TRIBUTARIES IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM. 

I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN AND SUBCOMMITTEE FOR 

SCHEDULING THIS HEARING BEFORE THE DISTRICT WORK PERIOD. THIS 

ISSUE IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO ME AND THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION 

WHO HAVE ALL JOINED ME AS COSPONSORS OF H.R. 2650. IN ADDITION, 

SENATOR BRADLEY, ALONG WITH SENATOR LAUTENBERG, WILL BE 

INTRODUCING COMPANION LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE TODAY. 

IN 1987, I, ALONG WITH MY SENATE COLLEAGUES, SPONSORED 

LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO STUDY THE 

ELIGIBILITY OF THESE RIVERS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES FOR INCLUSION 

INTO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM. ONLY THE MOST SELECT FREE-FLOWING 

RIVERS THAT HAVE OUTSTANDING NATURAL, CULTURAL, OR RECREATIONAL 

VALUES MAKE UP THE WILD AND SCENIC SYSTEM~ I AM PLEASED THAT 

AFTER FIVE YEARS OF STUDY, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOUND THAT 

ALL SEGMENTS OF THE RIVER WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION UNDER THE 

WILD AND SCENIC SYSTEM. 

THE MAURICE RIVER IS ONE OF NEW JERSEY'S MOST MAGNIFICENT 

TREASURES. THE RIVER FORMS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PINELANDS 

AND DELAWARE BAY ECOSYSTEMS, PROVIDES FRESH WATER TO THE REGION 

AND IS RICH IN THE UNIQUE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF SOUTHERN NEW 

JERSEY. THE REGION PROVIDES IMPORTANT HABITAT FOR A WIDE VARIETY 

OF ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND PLANTS, AND IS WELL KNOWN FOR ITS FISHING, 

BOATING AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. SITES OF CULTURAL AND 

HISTORICAL INTEREST ALONG THE RIVER CORRIDOR INCLUDE A 

PREHISTORIC NATIVE AMERICAN SETTLEMENT AND SEVERAL INTACT 

VILLAGES AND TOWNS. 

WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION ASSURES THE LONG-TERM PROTECTION 

OF UNIQUE NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH SOUND, LOCALLY-IMPLEMENTED 
21 

RIVER MANAGEMENT PLANS. SPECIFICALLY, MY BILL REQUIRES THAT 

MANAGEMENT OF THE DESIGNATED SEGMENTS WILL BE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 

BY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND 

LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. THESE AGREEMENTS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH 

LOCAL RIVER MANAGEMENT PLANS WHICH ARE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY THE 

PRODUCT OF LOCAL THINKING, BASED ON THE INPUT OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, 

BUSINESSES, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE PLAN WILL LIE SOLELY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. 

UNDER THE LAW, LANDS CANNOT BE ACQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF 

INTERIOR FOR WILD AND SCENIC AREAS WITHIN ANY INCORPORATED 

MUNICIPALITY WHICH HAS A VALID ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH CONFORMS 

WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION. AS THE RIVER MANAGEMENT 

PLANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND, 

IN SOME CASES, INCORPORATED INTO LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES, AND 

MEET THE GOALS OF THE WILD AND SCENIC ACT, CONDEMNATION OF 

PROPERTY WILL BE AVOIDED. THIS FACET OF THE OVERALL PLAN WAS KEY 

TO GAINING LOCAL APPROVAL. 

THIS BILL SEEKS TO MAINTAIN AND CONSERVE IMPORTANT RIVER 

RESOURCES, WHILE IT SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE RIVER IS 

ALSO THE ECONOMY OF THE REGION. THUS IT SEEKS TO PROTECT 

TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES SUCH AS OYSTERING, CRABBING, 

FISHING, RECREATION AND TOURISM. 

THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES HAVE SHOWN THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE 

PRESERVATION OF THIS VERY SPECIAL RESOURCE. INDEED, ALL FIVE 

AFFECTED MUNICIPALITIES HAVE PASSED RESOLUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF 

WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION. THESE ENDORSEMENTS ENABLE THE 

DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 35 MILES, ENCOMPASSING ALMOST THE 

ENTIRE STUDY SITE. SUCH STRONG SUPPORT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS 

UNIQUE AND REFLECTS MANY YEARS OF HARD WORK FROM THE GRASSROOTS 

LEVEL TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

AS AN AFFIRMATION OF THAT SUPPORT YOU WILL SOON HEAR 

TESTIMONY FROM JANE GALETTO WHO IS HERE WITH DON FAUERBACH 

REPRESENTING CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS 

TRIBUTARIES. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR FROM JENNIFER LOOKABAUGH WHO IS 

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF 

FREEHOLDERS. IT IS THE TIRELESS EFFORTS OF JANE, DON, JENNIFER 

AND OTHER LOCAL CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS THAT HAS BROUGHT US THIS 

FAR. 

ADDITIONALLY, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE --PARTICULARLY PATTY 

WEBER-- HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB IN WORKING WITH THE AFFECTED 

COMMUNITIES TO ENSURE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM 

BY ALL PARTICIPANTS. 

AS YOU MAY KNOW, NEW JERSEY IS PERHAPS OUR COUNTRY'S MOST 

URBANIZED STATE. YET THERE ARE STILL PORTIONS OF OUR STATE THAT 

ARE UNSPOILED, WITH WATERS THAT CAN STILL BE CALLED "PRISTINE." 

THE MAURICE RIVER, ITS TRIBUTARIES AND THE SURROUNDING LAND 

COMPRISE ONE SUCH AREA. IN CONSIDERING H.R. 2650 WE HAVE AN 

OPPORTUNITY TO AFFORD THIS UNIQUE RESOURCE THE PROTECTION IT 
22 

DESERVES SO THAT OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN CAN ENJOY ITS 

BEAUTY . ACTING NOW TO PROTECT THE MAURICE RIVER WILL BE LOOKED 

UPON IN THE YEARS AHEAD BY THE CITIZENS OF NEW JERSEY AND THE 

REST OF THE NATION AS ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CONSERVATION 

ACTIONS THAT THIS BODY HAS ACCOMPLISHED. 

AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND PARTICULARLY 

YOU, CHAIRMAN VENTO, FOR EXPEDITING CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL. 

I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE. 
23 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I read it last night and it is an excellent statement. And let me say, Bill, that I think you have responded in 

terms of placing this in the context of the national system and that 

is really what we are looking for. We cannot, obviously, do these 

things on an ad hoc basis or we would not have a Wild and Scenic 

River System. 

So this pattern of governance and the criteria, and so forth, that 

are followed are all reflected in the governance mechanisms that 

you have chosen to use and that have been subscribed to by the 

applicants in the community and the five municipalities and they 

are now supporting it. I know you worked hard and they worked 

hard to attain and achieve that and so we will certainly look kindly 

on this measure. 

I think that it is a good measure. I think it is a major accomplishment for 31 miles of wild and scenic river designation in New 

Jersey in 1993. I think this would sort of underline the importance 

of the idea of conservation and preservation of some important resources in that area, in one of the most populated States, as you 

say, in your statement. 

We have to go vote momentarily. Let me---

Mr. HUGHES. Can I make one additional statement, I know we 

have to vote. 

Park Service has been very, very helpful, Patty Weber is here, 

and she has done a magnificent job. 

Mr. VENTO. Her name shows up in everyone's statement, so I 

want to be sure to meet Patty Weber. 

Mr. HUGHES. Steve Kehs is our county planner and he was so 

very helpful, he could not be here but I had to single out those two 

because they have done yeomen's work in bringing us to where we 

are today and I thank them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. We have a few minutes. 

Can you, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Rogers, can you come back to 

give your statements? Bill had to go to another event, that is why 

I took him so quickly. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. We will stand in recess to go vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. 

I am pleased to welcome our colleague, Mr. Rogers, from Kentucky, who is the sponsor of the Red River Designation Bill and invite you to proceed with your comments. 

Thanks for being here, Hal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing 

us to come as expeditiously as you have, you and Mr. Hansen, and 

the rest of the subcommittee. 

The matter to which I refer, the Red River Gorge designation-

! will let my written statement appear in the record, if you would 

like, and I will summarize the statement briefly. 

Mr. Chairman, what we are seeking is the designation of 19.4 

miles of the Red River Gorge in eastern Kentucky as a wild and 
24 

scenic river designation. This would be the first one in Kentucky. 

There are no other such designations. 

Mr. Chainnan, I wish you could visit this gorge, it is a spectacular and serene setting. A gorge in the Appalachian Mountains bisected by the Red River. White River for most of the course of this 

gorge, the gorge is filled with 21 natural arches, for example, towering chimney rocks, bluffs of sheer dimensions. 

This was a favorite place of the Indian tribes in the days of Kentucky being the preserve for Indian tribes around the Nation. This 

was the centerpiece of that. 

It is surrounded by the Daniel Boone National Forest and has 

the recommendation, in fact the Forest Service is the one who came 

up with this idea, and something that we all, certainly I, endorse 

wholeheartedly. I have visited the gorge all of my life. It is some 

miles from my home but it is a place where you could go and see 

spectacular settings in a very serene surrounding with all sorts of 

animals and wildlife of all sorts. 

I am told the gorge contains a wider variety of flora and fauna 

than any other similar place in the North American Continent. It 

is spectacular in every sense and needs to be preserved, which is 

the point of my request. 

The gorge that we are talking about, the part of the gorge would 

be 19.4 miles, 9.1 of that would be classified as wild and the remaining 10.3 in the lower gorge area as recreational. 

The upper gorge does not have any roadways but the lower gorge 

area does have a highway that bisects the region, therefore the reason for the recreational portion of the gorge. 

Mr. Chainnan, I don't know of anybody opposing this. Certainly, 

the Forest Service is here today and in strong support of it. There 

are some private property owners along the way. 

I don't think they are exactly thrilled with this, but I think we 

have some language in the bill similar to language the Chairman 

had in a bill five years ago, I think in your own district, that I 

think preserves and protects their rights as well as the public's 

right. 

So, Mr. Chainnan, I strongly recommend this to you. I hope it 

can be achieved. This would place on the national grid of National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers a masterpiece of the Maker, and I hope we 

can see it through to completion, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 
25 

Testimony of the Honorable Harold .Roqera 

Before the Natural Resources Committee 

Subco-ittee on Public Landa, National Parka, and Foresta 

August 5, 1993 
26 

Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hansen, I appreciate this chance to 

testify in support of H.R. 914, legislation I i ntroduced to 

designate a portion of the Red River in Kentucky a wild and 

scenic river. 

From the outset, let me thank you for holdi ng this hearing on the Red River. Anyone who has ever visited Eastern Kentucky can attest to the beauty and solitude of our mountains, lakes, 

and forests. To the people of Kentucky, the Red River represents 

the very best of all Kentucky's rich natural beauty and resources. 

Under the bill, the Upper Red River Gorge of 9.1 miles in 

length will be classified as "wild" and the remaini ng 10.3 mile 

segment in the Lower Gorge will be designated "recreational. 

Together this 19.4 mile segment will be the only waterway in 

Kentucky to receive this national designation. 

The Red River Gorge is a place of incredible natural beauty. 

The upper segment of the river sends crashing white-water rapids 

down the corridor, while the lower segment remains serine and 

tranquil. 

Rugged towering cliffs and cavernous overhangs surround the 

upper portions of the river; natural bridges, prehistoric "rock 

shelters," and "arches" attract tourists from all parts of the 

Commonwealth. These outstanding features are the result of 

geological formations that took millions of years to form, 

creating a truly unique natural habitat for a variety of rare plants and flowers. 

The wildlife and unique geological formations contained in 

the Red River gorge are true national treasures. Over the years, 

the Gorge has provided shelter and protection for Indian 

tribes farming opportunities for Kentucky families, and countless 

hours of rafting and hiking for camping enthusiasts. 

For the people of Wolfe, Menifee, and Powell counties the 

Red River is more than a unique archaeological and environmental area -- it is home to family farms and strong community ties. 

The people of these counties have worked hard to preserve 

and protect the land . And, this legislation ensures that they 

will be equal partners at the table when it comes to maintaining a strong rural economy and protecting the Red River. 

Under. my legislation, affected landowners will be fully 

compensated for their holdings ~ they choose to sell their land 

to the federal government. 

And, just as important, under my bill, if a landowner wants 

to keep his land grazing his cattle, or planting hay or 

growing corn -- he can do just that. 
Granting wild and scenic river designation to the Red River 

provides another important benefit -- it will help create badly needed jobs for families in·Eastern Kentucky. 

Showing off Eastern Kentucky's vast natural beauty, and rich 

cultural heritage is a critical part of our ongoing effort to 

improve the mountain economy. The Red River Gorge already 

attracts a growing number of visitors from Kentucky and 

surrounding states. 

But designating the Gorge a national wild and scenic river 

is a different matter entirely. This is a special designation - -one that puts the Red River Gorge on the map, so to speak ••• a sign to tourists everywhere that this is a "MUST SEE""whenever 

you are in the local area. 

Granting wild and scenic river status to the Red River Gorge 

is a win-win situation --.the river is protected for many 

generations to come ••• and families in Eastern Kentucky can be 

hopeful of an improved way of life due to the natural beauty of a revered local landmark. 

Thank you Mr.Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions. 
28 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, and I did observe that language. I 

knew it had a familiar ring. I didn't realize it was quite so close 

to home. We were establishing a recreation river there and not applying the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The Mississippi, in that portion, didn't qualify as a wild and scenic, as this obviously does. 

There are a couple of prohibitions on the use of condemnation in 

the Wild and Scenic River Act, and I think there is a problem here, 

but we will get into the details of that with the Forest Service. 

There is no need to debate it at this or to analyze it at this particular point. Let me invite Congressman Bateman to make his presentation. 

He had indicated to me he has a markup to be off to, so I want 

to make certain we can move him along as quickly as possible. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT H. BATEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, very much. I do have a markup and 

I would ask unanimous consent my written statement be made a 

part of the record and I will summarize fairly quickly. 

Mr. VENTO. That has already been granted by a previous request. 

Mr. BATEMAN. The purpose of H.R. 2478, which I am deeply 

grateful for the committee bringing up for hearing this morning. 

And I know the difficulties under which you labored in order to 

have done so, to authorize this Secretary of the Interior primarily 

to acquire some 20 lots in a residential subdivision that would, if 

the development goes forward, despoil one of the great jewels in 

the National Park System of the United States, the Colonial National Historical Park. 

The property this authorizes the Secretary to acquire is contiguous to the parkway, which links the Jamestown Island, the site 

of the original permanent English settlement in North America to 

Williamsburg, the Colonial Capital of Virginia, and to Yorktown, 

where our independence was won at the battle of Yorktown in 

1781. 

Let me, if I may, read, rather than from my statement, one paragraph in the statement of Mr. Norman Beatty, who is here representing Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated, who are the trustees of that marvelous restoration, and who says, and I quote: 

A rolling, parkland of river vistas, tree-shaded rambles, wetlands wildlife, and se- renity, the Colonial Parkway begins where Englishmen broke ground for their First 

Colony, visits the town where Virginia patriots sew·Jd the seeds of liberty, and con- cludes on the battlefields where the father of our country reaped our freedom. 

It links cherished shrines of America's colonial traditions, and protects them from 

the trying encroachments of progress. All along its gracious, peaceful length, the 

right-of-way of this rural lane fashions a buffer between our bustling today's and our historic yesterday's. 

Almost poetic, Mr. Chairman, and all of it very, very true. 

So I hope the committee will see fit to report to bill and make 

it possible for this acquisition to avoid the despoiling of something 

that is as important to our heritage as the Colonial National Parkway. 

The other aspect of the bill provides for the authority to convey 

an ancient and badly in need of updating sanitary sewage system 

which the Park Service has owned and operated and, if authorized, 
29 

would transfer to the County of York, which has agreed to assume 

the responsibility for its future maintenance and care, alleviating 

the Park Service of that unwanted, unneeded and inappropriate responsibility. 

The terms of the bill have included discussions between the Park 

Service and the County of York in which the County of York has 

cut in a half the amount of payment that the Park Service would 

be obligated to make in connection with bringing the sanitary sewage system up to a reasonable standard before the transfer. In essence, the county is saying we are happy to take it over, maintain 

it, bear the cost into the future, but it ought to be brought to a 

workable, manageable level prior to our having to assume that responsibility. 

These are the two things that the bill does, and I would invite 

your attention to the support it enjoys from the County of James 

City, the County of York, the City of Williamsburg, the Williamsburg area Chamber of Commerce, and significantly, Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated. 

So I hope it will be your pleasure to move this very worthy legislation forward. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bateman and attachments follow:] 

76-Q68 - 94 - 2 
HERBERT H. BATEMAN IITIMSTIIICT.v.:iiNIA 

30 

nar-..s_._. ....... N_-.,V,.23--21U 

411M!17S-IIJ.:l 

a:ongrt.s.s of tht 'llnittd tStatts 

!\oust or 'Rtprumtati\lts 

filashington, f)II: 20515-1601 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HERBERT H. BATEMAN 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FOREST AND PUBUC LANDS 

H.R. 2478 

AUGUST 5, 1993 

CfU~,A-AT 

F---.v~>.2U07 

-.vAZUOI..O.H 

ti0.1711-7UI 

a.YA..C.....Tou.F•u ,_.1)1).4,._..u 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and this subcommittee for holding this hearing 

today on H.R. 2478, a bill I have introduced to solve two problems confronting the Colonial 

National Historical Park in Virginia. Given how crowded and hectic all of our schedules are during these last days prior to the August recess, I certainly appreciate this 

subcommittee adding my bill to today's hearing. I believe H.R. 2478, and the problems it 

seeks to resolve, merits your swift and favorable consideration. 

H.R. 2478 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and to convey 

certain lands or interests in lands to improve the management, protection and administration 

of Colonial National Historical Park. Specifically, it would ensure the preservation of 

scenic, natural and historic resources along the park's Colonial Parkway, as well as release 

the National Park Service from its current obligation to maintain sewer systems in the 

Yorktown, Virginia area. My concern about these problems at Colonial National Historical 

Park is shared by my Virginia colleagues in the Senate. Senators Warner and Robb recently 

introduced legislation, S. 1278, sintilar to H.R. 2478. 

The urgency for enacting H.R. 2478 stems primarily from rapidly encroaching 

development along the Colonial Parkway near historic Jamestown. The Colonial Parkway is ao integral part of Colonial National Historical Park. It is a national treasure connecting the 

Historic Triaogle of Jamestown, Yorktown aod Williamsburg with a wooded and scenic 

lintited access road. The Colonial Parkway has never been directly threatened by 

development since it was built over 60 years ago. Until now. 

This legislation is urgently needed to authorize the acquisition of lands adjacent to the 

existing Park boundary between Mill Creek aod Neck O'Land Road before houses are constructed on this prime real estate. Such development would seriously mar and detract 

from the scenic beauty aod integrity of the Parkway. This outcome must be avoided. It can with enactment of H.R. 2478. My bill would override the current lintitation on the width of 

the Colonial Parkway between Mill Creek aod Neck O'Laod Road as well as penni! 

acquisition by the National Park Service of those lots, numbered in National Park Service 

Drawing Number 333.80031, that are subject to imminent development. 

THIS STAT10N£JIY l"ft!NTED ON PAI'Efl MADE OF RKYCLED FIIEltS 
31 

- 2-

I recognize the concerns of some of my colleagues on this subcommittee and the full 

Natural Resources Committee about authorizing further additions to our national park system 

at a time of limited budgets. While I understand and share this concern, I sincerely believe 

authorizing the acquisition of the 12 to 15 acres of land in question is urgently needed, 

necessary and economically justified. It is urgently needed because the property developer 

is under pressure to sell the land and begin construction as quickly as possible to meet bank 

loan committnents. It is necessary because we must not allow such a beautiful national 

treasure like the Colonial Parkway to be jeopardized when it is within our means to save it. 

Finally, it is economically justified because if development advances--such as the imminent 

construction of costly homes with spectacular views of the James River--the potential cost to 

the U.S. taxpayer of protecting and acquiring the land and houses will increase enormously 

if prompt action is not taken--now. 

The boundary modification I advocate is supported by the National Park Service, the 

property developer, James City County and other local government officials, as well as a number of other historic preservation associations, including the Colonial Williamsburg 

Foundation. I would like to submit for the record letters from interested officials and 

organizations that support the swift enacttnent of H.R. 2478. 

Mr. Chairman, the other problem my bill seeks to address is the deterioration of a 

sewage disposal system, owned by the National Park Service, that serves Colonial National 

Historical Park as well as local residents in and around Yorktown, Virginia. Yorktown is a 

small community, parts of which are within and adjacent to the Park. My bill would 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant easements to York County for the sole 

purpose of maintaining and operating the sewage disposal system that was originally built in 

the 1950s. This bill would essentially complete responsible steps to get the National Park 

Service out of the sewage disposal business. 

In the mid-1970s, the National Park Service provided York County with 

approximately $73,000 to improve the part of the sewer system serving most of Colonial 

National Historical Park and the village of Yorktown proper. Later, York County took over its maintenance and operation. However, the portion of the sewage system that serves the 

Park's Moore House, where General Cornwallis surrendered his British troops to General 

George Washington, and the Moore House residential subdivision has never been upgraded. 

Thirty six private residents also are served by the National Park Service's Moore House sewage disposal system. 

York County officials have been willing to cooperate with the National Park Service to help it avoid further deterioration of the Moore House sewage system. The county has 

been willing to take over the maintenance and operation of the sewage system, provided that 

it is brought up to appropriate county standards. Originally, York County officials were 

only willing to accept the sewage system if the National Park Service paid for l!!J. costs 

associated with the system's upgrade. That cost is estimated to be around $203,000. 

However, recent negotiations between my office, York County officials and the 

Superintendent of Colonial National Historical Park have resnlted in what I believe is a more equitable, cost-conscious compromise. Through this compromise, the National Park 

Service's Moore House sewer system would be upgraded and its operation and maintenance 

transferred to York County on a cost-sharing basis. 

Under this compromise, York County would agree to do--at no cost to the National 

Park Service--that engineering and maintenance work that can be accomplished with county 

personnel and recently acquired equipment. The National Park Service would pay only for 

the work that is contracted out. It is estimated that this cost would not exceed $110,000. 
32 

-3-

This approach, acceptable to the National Parle Service and York County officials, would 

result m an almost 50-50 split of project costs. For the record, I would lilce to submit a July 30, 1993 letter from the Chairman of the York County Board of Supervisors to the 

Superintendent of Colonial National Historical Parle outlining this compromise in greater 

detail. I also would lilce to submit for the record a detailed rehabilitation cost estimate by Buchart Hom, Inc., one of Yorlc County's prime contractors, regarding expected costs to 

be borne by York County and the National Parle Service. It was done in January of 1992. 

I believe getting the National Parle Service out of the sewage disposal business is 

desirable and cost effective. It is desirable because it will enable officials at the parle to focus their time, talents and energy on more important mission-related worlc at Colonial 

National Historical Parle. It is cost effective because of the fmancial savings and operational 

headaches that would be eliminated for the National Parle Service. As owners of the 

deteriorating system, the National Parle Service rislcs having to pay hundreds of thousands of 

dollars some unpredictable time in the furure should the 30-year-old plus Moore House 

sewage-disposal system develop problems. H.R. 2478 would ensure that the U.S. taxpayer 

is not left piclcing up a far more costly tab than otherwise would be necessary. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the reasons for swift and favorable consideration of 

H.R. 2478 by your panel are compelling and clear. It will ensure that a national historic treaSUre is not permanently scarred by encroaching development. It also will help the 

National Parle Service to improve its management and administration of Colonial National 

Historical Parle. For these reasons, I urge and would greatly appreciate this subcommittee's 

support and cooperation in bringing H .R. 2478 before the full House without delay. 

Thanlc you. 
Board of Supervisors 

PERRY M. DEPUE 

JACK D. EDWARDS 

JUDITH N. KNUDSON 

DAVIDL SISK 

STEWART U. TAYLOR 

33 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

P.O. Box JC 

Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-3627 

COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 101 MOUNTS BAY ROAD 

(804) 253-6609 

July 21, 1993 

The Honorable Herbert H. Bateman 

United States House of Representatives 

1518 Longsworth House Office Building 

Was_hinqton, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Bateman: 

Tharik you for your sponsorship of H.R. 2478 that 

will protect the scenic integrity of the Colonial 

Parkway by authorizing the SecretarY of the 

Interior to acquire land for the Colonial National 

Historical Park, specifically, 22 lots of the Page 

Landing subdivision located in James City County 

adjacent to the Colonial Parkway. 

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of James City 

County, Virginia, I am writing to The Honorable 

Charles s. Robb and The Honorable John W. Warner 

requesting them to introduce a companion bill in 

the United States Senate and informing them that 

the County does not object to the proposed 

acquisition. 

We appreciate your efforts on behalf of the 

National Park Service and James City County in 

protecting our historic vistas. 

Sincerely, 

Judith 

~~~~ N. Knudson 

Chairman 

JNK/mls 
34 

CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG 

Office of the l-layor and City Council 

401 Lafayette Str e et. William~burg, Virginia 23185 

(804) 220-6100 I Fu (804) 220-6109 

The Honorable Herbert H. Bateman 

1030 Longworth HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Bateman: 

July 30, 1993 

The City of Williamsburg co=ends you for introducing House Bill 2478 

authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 22 lots in James City County 

abutting the Colonial Parkway near Jamestown, and urges House members to 

approve this legislation so vital to this historic area. Similar legislation has been 

initiated by Senators Robb and Warner. 

Failure to approve this measure will permit a housing development to come within 

easy view of this otherwise beautifully wooded link between Yorktown, 

Williamsburg and Jamestown. 

Prompt action is vital because the property owner must sell the land to meet bank 

loan commitments. 

As you know, the Colonial Parkway is a scenic, limited access road enjoyed by local 

residents as well as millions of visitors from all over the world. Approval of this 

legislation and prompt acquisition of the 'James City County land now on the 

threshold of development will preserve the feeling of reliving our colonial history 

as one drives along the Parkway. 
35 

9frf&mu/mm, @11m 

CHAMBER ~~OMMERCE P'. O. !lOX 3620 • WILLIAMSDUI\CS, VI"OINIA 23187•3f1ZO • (804J Zll·&" 1 

August 2, 1993 

The Houorablc Herbert H. Bateman 

United States House of Rcpreseulatives 

2350 Rayburn House Office Building 

Wa~hin£10n, DC 20515 

T>ear CongrcssmHn BHteman: 

Prese.rving the integrity ancl amhiHnr.t: of the Historic Triangle (Jamestown, Yorktown. 

Williamsburg) including the Colonial Parkway has bt'.en H Chamher objective for over 50 

years. We join with other local public and private organizations in supporting H .R. 247!1 

and applaud your efforts to introduce it. 

This legislation will cnnblc the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 22 lots immediately 

adjoining the Parkway in a rapidly growing residentiul subdivision. It is necessary to 

prevent their development and to preserve the quality of the cnvironnumt nlong this 

special roadway. 

Tiu.~ Colonial Parkway is au integral part of the Coloni11l National Historic Park. It is a 

national treasure connecting the Historic Triangle with 11 s(;(;uic limited access motor mad 

enjoyed ,by both local residents and visitors from all over the world. 

We appredatt-. your assistanC".c wilh thi~ mo~t important matter to the citizens and 

businesses throughout the Historic Trinngle arM. 

Sincerely, 

Robert W. Hershberger 

Executive Vice President 

RWH/lcg 
36 

~ 

~. __ H_I_ST_O_RI_c_Rr_V_E_Rs_L_AND __ C_o_N_S_ER_V_A_N_c_Y,__ 

PostOfficeBox2000 • Williamsburg, Virginia23187 

BoAJ<D OF DIRECTORS 

Carol}n Lowe 

President 

JlmMcC<>rd 

Vice Pnsident 

Shaune Reams 

Stcretary 

Nancy Carter 

TreQsurer 

Joy Archer 

DarrBarshis 

Jim Dorsey 

Brian Oordineer 

Tory Gussman 

Judith Kator 

David Kleppinger 

Betty Rogers 

Tom SLicrho!r 

Brian Taber 

Estalena Thomas 

Bill Williams 

HoNORARY 

BoARD oF DIRECTORS 

William L. Apperson 

Peter A. G. Bro->n 

Mitchell A. Byrd 

Jackson H. Darst 

Frederick S. Fisher 

Alec Gould 

Carl Hershner 

Lois Hornsby 

Rodgers Huff 

Samuel T. Powell 

Ronald Rosenberg 

ThadW. Tate 

DOnna Ware 

August 3, 1993 

'I'he Honorable Herbert H. Bateman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2350 Rayburn Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Bateman: 

On behalf of Hhtoric Rivers Land Conservancy (HRLC), 

want to express strong support for House Bill 2478 t.o authoiize 

the acquisition of property adjacent to the Colonial National; 

Historic Parkway. 

HRLC is a local non-profit organization dedicated to the 

protQction of natural, scenic and historic resources in the James 

and York river watersheds. Preserving the scenic quality and 

integrity of the Parkway and its surrounding landscape is vitilly 

important not only to our region but to the entire nation. 

This roadway linking Jamestown, Uilliamsburg and York.towrt 

and bordering two great rivers brings everyone who travels its 

length into close touch with one of the most significant periods 

of our country's history. Any development that impairs the scenic 

vieus along the Parkway would diminish the visitor' :s expeTience 

of the area's historic values. This would also have a negatiVe 

impact on local economies which are dependent on attracting tourists 

and tourist-related businesses. 

For these reasons, we support passage of HB 2478 and verY 

much appreciat.e your sponsorship of this le:gi~lation. 

Sincerely. 

C!u--~ ----7~~----

Carolyn Lowe, President 

Historic Rivli!r:s Land ConservanCy 
Board of Oirt!ctors 

Mn. llli:t::~ K. Fisl~e:J 

Ch.lirmin 

William W. Ar<h<r. lll 

Prftid.l\t 

R ... ,.uc.scoa Vice:-Presiden.l 

Roger H. W, Ki~ 

V!J:c:-l'n:sidont 

Alexonda C. Kuru 

Vice·Prt:sidcnt 

II. KJNIOlpll Boy4 

Secn:wy 

Abilair S. M><donald 

Trcasun:r 

Plu! Mwphy 

Ufe Director 

Mr>.lucy H. Sydnor 

Ufe Dizeclor . 

c ... Iton s. Abboc• 

Dr. Mirchell A. Byrd 

J•ys. eau.m Mn. Pcu:: S. Calos 

Ms. Annie C. Chalkloy 

J-E. Oxldihy, Jr. 

John L Cunis. Jr. 

lciiD J. Dompoey, M.D. 

Ge«JC s. El4er 

Robert Emmea. m RlchutiC.Erit:k""' 

Frldellek S. Flsh<r,IIJ 

Col. E!Ky HaiTis, Jr. 

IUdlartl D. HmiJun 

lol1a G. ICino$, Jr. 

Bronclt P. La..,_ 

Ma.~F t..oMn.lciiD H.~ 

ltalaldH. Paclt 

.... Sara .E. Paucn PufM.Peelllcs 

WamS. RDbcnson.Jr. ,.... 1.. Tre..la 

Norwooa wuson. m 

37 

LOWER JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION 

P.O. BOX 110 

RICHM OND, VIRGINIA 23201 

(804) 73(}.2898 

August 3, 1993 

The Honorable Herbert H. Bateman u. s . Congress 

2350 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Bateman: 

Thank you for introducing House Bill 2478 to authorize 

the acquisition of land adjacent to the Colonial 

National Historical Parkway. We support your efforts 

t o preserve the historic and aesthetic qualities of 

this valuable national scenic byway, which is subject 

to imminent encroachment by development. 

Since the parkway connects the historic triangle of 

Jamestown, Williamsburg and Yorktown, which is the 

foundation of Virginia's history and the country's, protection of an adequate buffer from develo~nt is 

crucial. The historic resources of this area provide · a significant source of income to the localities, as well as the ~t~tA, ~o there is a direct positive economic impact from this project. 

'l'he Lower Jamea River l>.BRO<:illtion is committed to the 

preservation of the natural and historic resources of 

the tidal James River Watershed, consistent ~ith 

order1y deve1opment. We have appro~imately 1300 

members, who live aod work in .this area . 

Many of our ~r• have sel.ect.d thla reqion to 1 i ve because of its historic and scenic resources. The 

Colonial National Historical Parkway is a .vital link 

for these resources ~d of great £iqnificance to the 

residents of this area. 

Thank you for your leadership in th1a endeavor. 

Please let us know what else we might do to help you. 

Moat aincere1y, 

P~tl-~ Patricia A. JackSon 

Executive Director 
38 

COUN1Y OF YORK 

COUNTV AD~IINISlltATOR 

O.n.Je l M. Stvck 

July 30, 1993 

Mr. Alec Gould 

Superintendent 

VIRGINIA 

Colonial National Historical Park 

P.O. Box 210 

Yorktown, Virginia 23690 

Dear Mr. Gould: 

Subject: Moore House Road Sanitary Sewer System 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Mary F. Sinclair 

Olatrtct 1 

Dcnrtls F. Gardner [)f.....,.. ""'' W. GArman IMI'trlct3 

James W. Funk 

Ollltrtct4 

Jc~M MIIIs 

Dtstrlct& 

With reference to the meeting held on July 30, 1993, with you, Paul 

Nardo, John Dunn, Mary Sinclair and me concerning the transfer of 

the Moore House Road Sanitary Sewer System to York County, please 

be advised of the following : 

1. The Board of supervisors passed a resolution on February 20, 

1992, authorizing the county Administrator to accept a rightof-way grant and a fee simple ownership of the sewer system 

and to accept the sum of $203,200 from the National Park 

Service to bring the system up to County standards. 

2 . As this issue was addressed by formal Board action, it will 

take an additional action to modify the resolution outlined in 

Item 1 above. 

J . After further review of the situation I am prepared to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the 1992 Resolution 

be modified as follows: 

a. That the County agree to do at no cost to the Park 

service that engineering and maintenance work that can be accomplished with County forces and equipment. 

b. That the Park Service pay for all work that will have to 

be contracted out. It is estimated that this cost would 

not exceed $110,000. 

This approach would result in a close to fifty-fifty split of 

the project costs. 

284 Ballard Stttct • P.O. Box MB • Yorktown, VlrglnJa B3690-0I§32 • (804) 890-.3320 
Mr. Alec Gould 

July 30 , 1993 

Page 2 

39 

In addition, the County is proceeding with the rehabilitation of the Read street sewage Pump Station rather than the construction of 

a new pump station in Yorktown. As part of this work, the county 

plans to dismantle and back fill, at its cost, the old imhoff tank 

and trickling filter from the old Park Service Sewage Plant. It is 

anticipated that this cost will be in the range of $50-70,000. 

Given the magnitude of these combined costs, I cannot recommend 

that the county participate in cost sharing on the Moore House Road 

Sewer System to any greater extent. I am sure that you understand 

that this represents only Ms. Sinclair's and my position at this 

time and is subject to approval of a majority of the Board . 

However, ·I feel that this approach could work as the basis of an equitable settlement of a long standing issue that has already 

absorbed too much time and energy. Given your feeling that this 

approach will be acceptable to congressional staff I plan to have 

this formally considered at the next Board meeting which is 

scheduled for August s, 1993. 

Please feel free to call if you have any further questions on this issue. 

rely, 

:{f). VY}/1/~/e H. Mills, chairman ~ County Board of supervisors 

Copy to: G. Paul Nardo 

Mary Sinclair 
lbl 

BUCHART 

HDRN.I\IC. 

40 

APPENDIX A 

MOORE HOUSE ROAD SEWER SYSTEM 

REHABILITATION COST ESTIMATE 

RESPONSIBILITY SEWER UNE REHABILITATION COSTS COSTS TO PARK SERVICE 

Yorlc County A. Rush and Vacuum Clean 

5600 l.F@ $2.00/LF D $11,200 $ 0 

Yorlc County B. Root Removal 

1. Mechanical 

5600 LF@ $1.00/LF = 5,600 0 

2. Chefnlcal~ Treat 

5600 @ $2.00/LF D 5,600 

Yorlc County C. Re -TV System 

4000 LF@ $1.50 • 6,000 0 

Park Service D. Mainr~ne Rehabilitation 

1. Joint Grouting 

500 EA @ $25.00/EA • 12,500 12,500 

2. Repair Mainline 

500 LF. @ $70.00/LF • 35,000 35,000 

3. Fix Manholes 

22 EA@ $750/EA = 16,500 16,500 

Parle Service E. Laterals 

« EA@ $750/EA ~ $ 33,000 

TOTAL CONS!. COST $125,400 $ 97,000 

CONTINGENCY 15% .l.II..IIQQ 14' sso $144,200 

TOTAL ESTIMATED SEWER LINE REHABILITATION 

··Rounded to $111,5007 

$110,000 

PAGES 

@ __ 
b 

BUCHART 

HCRN,INC. 

41 

RESPONSIBILITY AUXILIARY COSTS 

York County 

York County 

A. Engineering Fees 

Plans & Specifications 

Aeld Measurements 

Bidding Phase 

Const. Overview 

Resident Insp. 

TOTAL ~NGINEERING FEES 

B. Easements/Lande Acquisition 

None anticipated. 

C. York County Preacqulsitlon Costs 

$15,000 

5,000 

9,000 

15,000 

1MQ!.l 

$59,000 

System Evaluation Study $4,500 

Preacquiskion lV Inspection 2,800 

TOTAL COUNTY PREACQUISITION $ 6 , 3 0 0 

TOTAL AUXILIARY COSTS $65,300 

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $209,500 

PAGES 

76-<J68 54 

COSTS 'l'O PARK S!WVICE 

$ 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

$ 0 

$ .o 

SllO, 000 
42 

Mr. VENTO. Again, I know this is an issue on which you want 

to demonstrate some movement, some concern. It was submitted 

recently. We are pleased we were able to obtain the response from 

the Park Service and that negotiations on the transfer of the sewer 

system has progressed. So I think the Park Service is prepared 

today to support the bill with a certain split in terms of costs, and 

with regard to language on easements, and so forth, which we assume would be satisfactory insofar as it accomplishes the purpose. 

We will talk more about the whole total boundary of that parkway, I think, with the Park Service. I think yours is sort of a specific fix over a more narrow portion of the parkway. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Because of the compelling need, this property will 

be lost to development unless there is very early movement at least 

to this extent. 

Mr. VENTO. The status of that now is that the developer-are 

they actually moving to improve it? 

Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, they are. It is an ongoing subdivision of 

which a part would be removed by this acquisition. If this is not 

done, the developer is under economic pressure that he has to go 

forward. 

He has his bank loans and construction loans, he has the economic pressures that he has got to move forward unless someone 

is saying, well, we will buy this from you at a reasonable fair market value appraisal. 

Mr. VENTO. I have two questions of these witnesses. 

I think the Red River is an outstanding resource, and I note the 

Forest Service supports the bill. If they want to discuss a little 

about the modifications from their generic act, that is fine, but I 

don't foresee, based on the ownership of Federal land there already, 

having to have other mechanisms to deal with it. Probably it is not 

ideal, but it is workable, considering the outstanding nature of the 

resource. 

And certainly I am in sync with your concerns in terms of having 

adequate screening on that parkway, and this is an area where, 

hopefully, we would have been able to see this ahead of time, but 

we don't always recognize things until the problem is upon us, Herbert. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, if I might, Mr. Chairman, I would just make 

reference to the fact that Superintendent of the Colonial National 

Historical Park is with us today, Mr. Gould, who has been helpful 

and very proficient in seeing that park is taken care of. 

Mr. VENTO. And he will probably be here to hear Mr. Reynolds 

testify. 

Mr. Hansen, do you have any words of wisdom for our colleagues 

this morning? 

Mr. HANSEN. I don't know if I would go that far, as far as wisdom, but I have looked at these and I can't see any huge problems 

with either one of them. As an old land developer myself, I have 

a little concern for that person, Herb, and what he will face in 

working that thing out. 

I know that sometimes we are well into a project before someone 

sees some reason, though, justifiably, you have brought up here 

concerning this. I would assume negotiations are going on between 
43 

the developer and the Park Service as to how this will be worked 

out. 

Do you have any problems there? Looking at this map, it seems 

there is wetlands there. 

Mr. BATEMAN. There are many wetlands surrounding the Colonial National Parkway. If anything, here we would ameliorate any 

wetland problems because it would be brought into the Park Service holdings and would be preserved and protected in its natural 

state. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is a major problem for those of us in the west. 

Right out in the Utah desert the Corps of Engineers calls it wetlands, so we have to be very careful. If it rains one time, the Corps 

of Engineers can always seem to make it wilderness. 

But, anyway, I commend you for doing it and, of course, Mr. 

Chairman, I have the greatest respect for both Mr. Rogers and Mr. 

Bateman, very excellent legislators, and normally would not get 

into anything that was not justifiable. 

But I have to ask, Hal, on this 19 miles, as I have been looking 

at it, this is something that is used for rafting, river running, recreation? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. This area is highly visited now. It is not a 

park. It is a part of the State of Kentucky's Wild and Scenic River 

System, but that does not offer the protection as the Federal law 

does. 

It is a highly visited area now, almost like a national park. Thousands of/eople go there and ride the rapids, sky dive and-or hand 

glide. an climb and hike the trails and see the scenery and picnic 

and the rest. It is a beautiful area that is heavily used now. 

But the threat is that McDonald's and the rest will encroach 

upon this property and render it less than what it is now. It is 

pretty well protected now. 

There is very little-there are some farms that occupy a portion 

of the area and some people use that for farming purposes, haying and grazing and that type of thing, of course, which can continue 

under this designation. But there is no commercial development 

there now and that is what we are worried about happening. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would surely agree with you, it is a very justifiable thing you are doing. 

Is there any restrictions on what they can do on the river now? 

I assume they kayak, canoe, raft, swim, that type of thing? 

Mr. ROGERS. AB I say, it is under the State designation of a wild 

river, which does protect it from certain activities. I can't give you 

a catalogue of those now, but there are restrictions on what you 

can do. Mr. HANSEN. Is it a big river? 

Mr. ROGERS. By your terms, it is not a huge river. By our terms, 

it is a river rather than a creek. 

Mr. HANSEN. Can you throw a rock across it? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is not like the Colorado, in other words? 

Mr. ROGERS. It is like the Colorado in miniature. It is not that 

big a river, but it is a constantly flowing rapid. 

Mr. HANSEN. There are no motors on those rafts as they go through? 
44 

Mr. ROGERS. No, no. 

Mr. HANSEN. So strictly rowing. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mainly canoeing and kayaking. There are no motorized craft on the river at all. I don't think it is even allowed under 

State law. I can be mistaken but. 

Mr. HANSEN. In the West they gauge those rapids on a scale of 

1 to 10. If you ever make it to the Colorado, the Loud Falls, the 

Crystal, and those are a 10. You have some 15-foot curl waves, believe it or not, that go that high. 

My son is a professional river runner and I have gone through 

every river in the West. 

Do you have anything of that size in there? 

Mr. ROGERS. Nothing like that, of course. The tourists would be 

well served to go to your area and experience that, but the Red 

River--

Mr. VENTO. Those that want to live dangerously. Mr. ROGERS. I am a canoer myself, very amateurish, maybe a 

couple of times a year. I have not canoed the Red River but others 

around there. 

The Red River, for the most part, is canoeable only in the spring 

and early summer when the waters are heavier than normal. At 

this time of year, it would be difficult because the water is just not 

that plentiful in the river. 

But the main part of the river is not the rafting part or the canoeing part, it is the scenic and trails. And, as I said, 21 natural 

arches in this one valley is spectacular scenery. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems like a commendable piece of legislation to me. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much, Herb and Hal. We will be in touch with 

you as we work out the procedures for consideration of further action on these measures. 

Thanks so much for waiting around this morning. Sorry it took 

so long. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hansen, 

for taking this up so timely. Appreciate it. 

Mr. VENTO. Let's hear from the Associate Deputy Chief first, before John Reynolds. I know he has just the one bill, so we can probably continue this discussion on the Red River here and then go on 

to the other public witnesses that are principally focused on other 

issues, although I note Beth Norcross is concerned about the Red 

River as well. 

Mr. Mills, welcome. 

Your statement has been made a part of the record and I appreciate receiving it so I could read it last night. 

You can proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS Mll..LS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. MILLS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be before the subcommittee to 

present the views of the Department of Agriculture on the Red 

River designation. 
45 

The Forest Service currently administers 96 congressionally designated wild and scenic rivers. It covers some 4,300-plus miles. We 

very much appreciate the work that Congress and the subcommittee, in particular, have done on those designations and the hard 

work it has taken over the last 25 years to achieve them. 

In conformance with the recommended alternatives and the environmental impact statement that was transmitted by the President 

to the Congress in January, the Department of Agriculture is 

happy to recommend enactment of H.R. 914, if amended. We recommend three amendments that would bring this bill in closer conformance to the general provisions of the Wild and Scenic River 

Act, which we feel has served us very well. 

The first amendment is that we recommend deletion of the special specific boundary provisions for the lower gorge portion in Section 3. The boundaries that are contained in the act for the lower 

gorge portion have not been carefully verified on the ground, and 

the Wild and Scenic River Act provides procedures that, we feel, 

work very well to establish those detailed boundary designations 

within one year of enactment. 

Secondly, we reco~mend deletion of the waiver of the 100-acre 

acquisition limit in Section 3 of H.R. 914. There are currently some 

3,348 acres in the proposed corridor, and the standard 100-acre acquisition limitation in the general provisions of the Wild and Scenic 

River Act would limit fee title acquisition to no more than 1,940 

acres. 

Current private ownership is considered to be less than that, 

about 1,117 acres and, therefore, would have no meaningful effect 

on the Red River. 

The third one, and the one that, Mr. Chairman, you have already 

commented on earlier, is that we recommend deletion of the provisions that would prohibit condemnation in Section 3 of H.R. 914. 

There are really two pieces to this: One deals with a fee title; the 

second one deals with other interests in the land. 

First of all, with regard to fee title, section 6(b) of the Wild and 

Scenic River Act already bars the Secretary in using condemnation 

to get fee title, if the Federal ownership exceeds 50 percent. As I 

mentioned earlier, with the numbers I gave you on the second recommendation, the Federal Government already owns more than 50 

percent, so the provision would not apply in this particular case 

anyway. It would, however, apply to the acquisition of interest, interests that are necessary to clear the title or acquire conservation 

easements. 

The Department has been very reluctant to use condemnation 

authority and, in fact, in the last 15 years has not used condemnation authority either for fee title or interest in easements. However, 

we think these provisions in the Wild and Scenic River Act are necessary to protect the public interest for these special resources and 

we are reluctant to have that authority removed and, especially in 

this situation, we are concerned it could be precedent setting. 

That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to deal with questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:] 
46 

STATEMENT OF 

THOMAS J. MILLS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning H.R. 914, a bill "To amend the Wild and Scenic 

Riyers Act to designate certain segments of the Red River in 

Kentucky as components of the national wild and scenic rivers 

system, and for other purposes." 

August 5, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 

Department of Agriculture regarding H.R. 914, a bill that would 

amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designating certain 

segments of the Red River in Kentucky as components of the 

national wild and scenic rivers system. 

The Department of Agriculture recommends enactment of H.R. 914 

if amended as suggested herein. 

Designation of the specified segments of the Red River as 

components of the wild and scenic rivers system conforms to the 

recommended alternative contained in the Wild and Scenic River 

Study and Environmental Impact Statement transmitted in January 

by the President to Congress. However, we recommend a number 

of technical changes to make the bill more consistent with the 
47 

governing provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 

90-542, as amended). 

Section 3 of H.R. 914 would designate a 19.4-mile segment of 

the Red River as part of the wild and scenic rivers system 

including a 9.1-mile segment known as the "Upper Gorge" and a 

10.3-mile segment known as the "Lower Gorge." The bill 

provides explicit boundaries for the 19.4-mile segment. We 

recommend that the boundaries for the Lower Gorge be deleted 

from subsection (ii). These boundaries are based on the 

recommended alternative in the Red River Wild and Scenic River 

Study. However, the study, recognizing the varied topography 

of the area, provided only an approximation of where the 

detailed boundaries should be drawn. 

We believe that the process described in Subsection 3(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act should be followed. It would direct 

the Department of Agriculture to establish detailed boundaries 

for the river segment within 1 year of its designation. This 

process, which provides for public participation, would allow 

for accurately defined boundaries that would facilitate 

management of the river segment in a manner that protects and 

enhances its unique and irreplaceable values. 

Additionally, section 3 of H.R. 914 would waive the 100-acre 

limitation contained in sectinn 6(a) of the Wild and Scenic 

River Act. The Act provides that, on average, no more than 

2 
48 

100 acres per mile on both sides of a designated river may be 

acquired by the Federal Government through fee title. For the 

proposed segments of the Red River, the Act would limit fee 

title acquisitions to 1,940 acres. The Red River Wild and 

Scenic River Study indicates that only 1,117 acres within the 

proposed river corridor is in private ownership. Accordingly, 

the 100 acre limitation would not apply and the Secretary of 

Agriculture would have the authority to acquire, by fee title, 

all of these private lands provided it is on a willing seller 

basis. Therefore, this subsection is unnecessary and we 

recommend that it be deleted from the bill. 

Finally, section 3 of H.R. 914 would prohibit the Secretary of 

Agriculture from acquiring, by condemnation, privately-owned 

land or interest in land within the authorized boundary of the 

Red River Wild and Scenic River unless the Secretary finds the 

use of the land has changed substantially after the effective 

date of any management plan prepared pursuant to section 

3(d)(l) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act." Section 6(b) of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would bar the Secretary from 

using condemnation to acquire, through fee title, lands within 

the proposed river corridor as the United States already owns, 

in fee title, 50 per centum or more of the entire acreage 

outside the ordinary high-water mark on both sides of the 

river. However, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does provide 

for use of condemnaticn when necessary to clear title or to 

acquire scenic easements or such other easements as are 
49 

reasonably necessary to give the public access to the river and 

to permit its members to traverse the length of the area or of 

selected segments thereof. While the Department has been very 

reluctant in using this authority in administering the Act, 

these authorities may be needed to implement the terms and 

conditions of the management plan prepared in accordance with 

section 3(d)(l) of the Act. For this reason, we recommend that 

this provision be deleted from the bill. 

This report is consistent with testimony presented by the 

Department before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, 

Parks and Forests on s. 250, a companion bill designating 

segments of the Red River as components of the national wild 

and scenic rivers system. 

This completes my comments on H.R. 914. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 
50 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Mills, and I am infonned my staff 

suggests you have not testified before the subcommittee before; is 

that correct? 

Mr. MILLS. I have been here just twice, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay, so it must have been in a brief presentation; 

noncontroversial. Today you get into more questions, however, than 

before. 

In any case, we are pleased to have you. 

The Forest Service folks come through here and kind of move on 

to other things, so I hope-not that I am wishing you don't have 

any progress in your profession, but we hope that we continue to 

have your assistance for some time in the future. 

I am trying to understand, and I don't know that I was focusing 

on all of the aspects-as I said, I read your testimony last nightbut the issue with regard to 50 percent ownerships, with regards 

to the Red River, this corridor. Is there 50 percent public ownership at this time? 

Mr. MILLS. Yes, there is. There is in excess of 50 percent. 

Mr. VENTO. So how does that affect your ability to buy fee simple? 

Mr. MILLS. It prohibits us. My understanding is that it prohibits 

us to buy fee simple. 

Mr. VENTO. So the issue at bay here is, of course, the easements; 

is that correct? 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct, sir. Mr. VENTO. So you have no such limit with regard to easements? 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So we are talking about, basically, you can purchase 

but you can-you can purchase fee simple but you have to do it on 

a willing seller/willing buyer basis. That is the existing law that 

works, and you are concerned that this provision that Congressman 

Rogers copied from the Mississippi bill-which is a recreation river, 

it is not a wild and scenic river bill; so I would point out it is not 

quite the same parallel-but it puts some limitation in tenns of 

when you can purchase. 

You can still buy scenic easements on a willing seller/willing purchase basis; is that right? 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. I am trying to sort through this. I don't think that 

the limitations-what are the limitations that are placed on you? 

The boundary limitation is a different matter. I will get back to 

that. But what other limitations-! want to know what type of 

trespass Mr. Rogers may be making here. Doesn't sound too bad 

yet to me. 

Mr. MILLS. The limitations that are already in the Wild and Scenic River Act, according to this reference I have here of Section 16, 

provides, we feel, adequate protection for the landowner when scenic easements are purchased or acquired. They cannot control any 

regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easements and, 

therefore, would only be acquired in such case if there was concern 

that use of the land would change significantly. So we feel that provides adequate protections even if in the very 

unusual situation--
51 

Mr. VENTO. The message I am getting is that his language says 

as I said it, and yours said it as you have said it in the law. 

Mr. MILLS. Ours says it as it is already contained in the law and 

we feel the law has served us well. 

Mr. VENTO. The other point that should not be controversial is 

the use of eminent domain for clearing title. As an example, much 

of the eminent domain that is used is not used in adverse taking 

but simply to clear title for ministerial or administrative purposes. 

So we might be able to work that out, although we have not, as 

you have pointed out, you have not really used in the last 10, 15 

years-the BLM or Forest Service has not used eminent domain at 

all. 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So this question of doing it for administrative purposes is something we might explore with Mr. Rogers, although I 

don't know-there are probably other means to do it, but that happens to be the least costly and the most efficient way to do it. 

I was impressed by your statement in talking about the resources here, as well as Mr. Rogers talking about the diversity of 

fauna and flora that occur in this area, as well as some geologic 

formations with the various arches, and so forth, in the area; it 

really does spark one's interest in terms of trying to take a look 

at it. I hope at some point I do have a chance to see it. 

But what is the use here? Mr. Rogers says a lot of people are 

using it. It is designated, of course, under State law, apparently, 

but they had not sought to designate it wild and scenic through the 

State procedures; is that correct, Mr. Mills? 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct. The State designation, which I believe took place in 1960, although I don't have that right at my fingertips, the State designation coincides with the upper gorge portion of H.R. 914. The use, the statistics I have here are about 5 

years old, but the recreation use in 1987 was over 4 7,000 

recreationists, with projections by the turn of the century that 

would increase by almost another 10,000. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that just on the Forest Service portion of the 

river? 

Mr. MILLS. On the river corridor that is designated, or at least 

that is the estimate. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the other questions you raised, and I did not 

pay much attention to this, but Mr. Rogers actually has constructed a map; is that correct, and that that specifies-of course, 

you are saying you need to get better data and a better map. And 

I think maybe what we ought to do is to get the Forest Service to 

meet with the principals here, the staff, and try to come up with 

a map. 

But, normally, the procedure we use is to simply designate certain amounts on either side of the corridor; is that correct? 

Mr. MILLS. Yes, sir. What we have done in the past, as I recall, 

is use the river management planning process, as the Wild and 

Scenic River Act provides, to within one year of designation come 

up with clear and understood boundaries by everyone. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, okay, I hope that is the case. I know we usually go--I think it looks like a more narrow corridor, but I can't tell 
52 

if it is more narrow or more broad. It seems to me the procedure 

we use is how many feet on either side of the river? 

Mr. MILLS. I am sorry, I can't tell you what the general provisions are, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. But it is a specific from the center line of the river. 

It is a quarter mile, I think, isn't it, in terms of the designated 

boundaries? So I don't know if this is more or less based on this. 

I expect it must be less; that it is a tighter boundary. 

In any case, I think you will have to work that through with Mr. 

Rogerr although I didn't take the opportunity to ask him a question about it. 

That could be very important in terms of having adequate resources to protect the line of sight from the surface of the river in 

terms of what is envisioned under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Of course, obviously, this sounds like it is a pretty deep gorge, so 

the control may not be as critical as what would normally occur. 

So it may be possible in these instances to proceed differently. 

I would trust, Mr. Mills, that staff would get with Mr. Rogers' 

staff and the Forest Service, to get together and try to do this in 

the month of August, if folks are around. 

Mr. MILLS. We would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mills, I am on page 3 of your statement. You are asking that 

Section 3 of H.R. 914 be deleted from the bill? 

Mr. MILLS. Clarification, sir. Section 3(d), paragraph 2, which is 

a subset of Section 3 that deals specifically with the prohibition of 

the use of the condemnation authority. 

Mr. HANSEN. So you would like to have the use of that, even 

though it would basically only be for corridors or easements; is that 

right? 

Mr. MILLS. It would be for other than fee title acquisition, yes, 

sir; for clearance of title or scenic need. 

Mr. HANSEN. You say, however, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

does provide for use of condemnation when necessary to clear title 

or to acquire scenic easements or such other easements as are reasonably necessary. 

So, apparently, if I am reading that right, you would be using or 

possibly could be using it for scenic easements for public access; is 

that right? 

Mr. MILLS. We want to-yes, sir, Mr. Hansen, we would like to 

retain that authority, although we do not, in this particular case, 

expect to need it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you have any specific examples on this stretch 

that Mr. Rogers is talking about where you would want to use this 

process of condemnation? 

Mr. MILLS. No, there are not, on the Red River, any situations 

where we would expect to use a condemnation authority for scenic 

easements. Our principal concern is there is a public interest to be 

protected here, and we are concerned about any precedent setting 

on this river, given, as I mentioned earlier, we have 96 others and 

many others we expect Congress to consider. 

Mr. HANSEN. But have you not used it on other rivers? 
53 

Mr. MILLS. We have used it in the past, sir, but not for the last 

15 years. 

Mr. HANSEN. So you are worried even though you don't have a 

reason to use it, you are worried not so much about the Red River, 

but the precedence you may establish in subsequent bills that will 

come before the Congress? 

Mr. MILLS. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is there an example of where you have been hammered by a precedent? . Mr. MILLS. No, I can't give you an example off the top of my 

head, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. But your attorneys just told you to worry; is that 

it? 

Mr. MILLS. Attorneys often are paid to tell us to worry. We are 

very interested in protecting the public values that the wild and 

scenic designations provide, particularly with increased development that is taking place in a lot of the United States. 

Whereas that authority may not be needed today, who knows 

what situations we could find ourselves in 5 or 10 years from now. 

Since we do not feel it would apply here, we don't think the protection is necessary for the Red River. We are very concerned about 

future designations. 

Mr. HANSEN. My staffers here tell me the Clarks Fork River in 

Wyoming prohibits use of any condemnation; has that caused you 

a problem? 

Mr. MILLS. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. HANSEN. So you really don't have an example? 

Mr. MILLS. No, I don't have an example. I would only repeat that 

we are very concerned about protecting those public values. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. But I think the Clarks Fork is a question of how 

much private or public land is there, too, because I believe they 

have over half publicly owned-and then we had Senator Simpson 

leaning on us the last night of the session to designate this river 

or else nothing else is going to get done. Half the session's work. 

Mr. HANSEN. Probably a good reason. 

Mr. VENTO. It was the Arizona bill, I think, was attached to it. 

As a matter of fact, the Arizona Wilderness Bill. 

But the other point, I would suggest, is that the interest in land 

is not absolutely eliminated here, and it is simply under a different 

test. The Secretary cannot acquire by condemnation private land or 

interest in land within the authorized boundaries unless the Secretary finds that the use of land has changed substantially after 

the effective date of the management plan. 

So you have your own screen in the Wild and Scenic River Act. 

This is a different screen here that is apparently tougher, tighter, 

than what is in the other. But it is not as though we don't have 

any screen here. So there is an opportunity to take action if there 

is substantial use. It is a question that this has probably not been-what that 

means is it has not been litigated, so we don't know how a court 

will deal with it. That is, in essence, the problem. And that is what 

they are trying to-obviously, Hal feels better with the Vento Ian-
54 

guage than with the language of the Wild and Scenic River Act language. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think he is wise. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is a tougher screen. I think it is a concern, 

but in any case, the Forest Service was obviously stating what it 

wants, it wants to have one law that regulates wild and scenic rivers, rather than different provisions that have to be applied differently. 

It is hard to have a national system if you have three different 

standards for what constitutes an adverse impact-and then permits the use of the tool for scenic easements or fee simple acquisition. That is the problem. It is easier to have one standard than 

10. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I'll be happy to yield. 

Mr. HANSEN. Probably what you say, there is a lot of wisdom in 

that. On the other side of the coin, as you look at the different rivers from coast to coast, there is a lot of specific and different situations that come along and I think each one of those almost has to 

be looked at on a retail basis. 

I have a very difficult time comparing some of these very beautiful rivers in the East with those bigger rivers in the West. And 

the situations, I almost think we should handle this on a retail 

basis. We look at each one specifically. 

I disagree with your counsel or whoever told you that this is 

going to establish a precedent. I am sure you could easily establish 

it on the basis of what the Green River, the Selway, the River of 

No Return, or one of those other hundreds of rivers we use in the 

West. I personally respectfully disagree on that particular point 

and think the Forest Service should take a careful look at it and 

predicate it on a retail basis. 

I would hope they would take a look at this particular river and 

say this is where we possibly would need public access, and in that 

regard, we will look at it and see if that is where we should get 

public access, and in that case, ask for it. I am sure Congress and 

those that are concerned would be concerned with it. 

I think this country is so big and different that it is hard to establish-if there is anything that bothers me as a Member of Congress, it is that laws are passed-! am speaking in sweeping generalities, and I apologize for that-but laws are passed that apply to 

Boston, Massachusetts, that obviously don't have a thing to do with 

Mexican Hat, Utah, but Mexican Hat, Utah, has to work with it. 

As a city councilman and mayor for a number of years in a small 

town in the West, I was frustrated with things that were passed 

by the Forest Service, BLM, Corps of Engineers and others. They 

would say, we don't make the laws; go talk to the guys back there. 

Now I am one of the guys back here and I am still frustrated with 

it. 

Excuse me for spilling that on you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is all right, I am concerned about Mexican 

Hat, Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. You should be, it is one of the places you guys are 

always passing laws about. 
55 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think the concern I have here is that if we 

are to give you the job of planning the river, you have to have the 

tools to deal with it and maybe a different sized hammer is appropriate here for the Red River than might be appropriate for another river where there is more confrontation. 

I think Congressman Rogers indicated that there is not a lot of 

opposition or strong support for it. Probably there are some people 

probably not completely enamored with this particular designation, 

so we have to try to balance that. But, look, I have fought very 

hard to keep in place the ability for the Forest Service land managers to have the tools they need. And there are some other tools 

they had to put in the Mississippi bill, I might say, that are different since it was a recreation river. 

If you look at the Park Service designation of the Maurice River 

and its tributaries that is being considered today, you find quite a 

different set of zoning and other requirements that are necessary 

to accommodate that. They come out of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. So there are different alternatives and quite a bit different 

than what are being suggested here. 

So maybe we will find something in the act that can meet Mr. 

Rogers' concerns and the concerns of Mr. Mills. 

I have no further questions of Mr. Mills. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. MILLS. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me invite the National Park Service Regional Di- rector, John J. Reynolds, from the Mid-Atlantic region. Who is 

about to be recognized as the Deputy Director of the Park Service. 

Mr. Reynolds is testifying on two measures today, on the wild 

and scenic designation of the Maurice River-it is "Morris" locally-we went through an argument about this once, but in any 

case-and the proposal for Colonial National Historical Park. 

Mr. Reynolds, your statements have been entered in the record. 

Why don't you take the river issues first, since we seem to be on 

rivers. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, 

MID-ATLANTIC REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ALEC GOULD, 

SUPERINTENDENT, COLONIAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

PARK, YORKTOWN, AND PATTY WEBER, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would appreciate that. 

First, I would like to say this is my first time ever testifying and 

to have the two of you people be the ones before whom I am testifying is a great honor. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to have you and you will probably 

see more of us than you want. Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't think that is possible. 

May I ask Patty Weber to come up and help me out? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, since we recognized her. She was recognized by 

Congressman Hughes, so she has received some high recognition 

for her work on the Maurice River and tributaries. Mr. REYNOLDS. I promised her I would not embarrass her by repeating it, but she deserves it. 
56 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide your subcommittee with views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 

2650. We strongly recommend the enactment of this bill. H.R. 2650 

would designated approximately 35 miles of the Maurice River-1 

am still a resident of New Jersey, it is "Morris River"-Maurice 

River and its tributaries in New Jersey as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Management of the river segments would be pursuant to cooperative agreements between the Secretary of the Interior and local 

municipalities. These agreements would be consistent with river 

conservation plans approved by the Secretary. 

In 1987, Congress designated segments of the Maurice and 

Manumuskin Rivers and Menantico Creek in New Jersey for study 

as potential components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. The National Park Service has since completed the study 

of these rivers. A draft study report was released for public review 

in June 1992, and the final report to the President is being reviewed within the administration. 

The study found that a total of 42.4 miles of the Maurice River 

and three of its tributaries were eligible for designation. We note 

that Section 3(d) of the bill would require the Secretary to continue 

to work with local municipalities for support of segments found eligible but not designated by this bill. We would expect to work with 

the local government concerning the 7.4 miles not designated but 

found eligible, and report back to the committees as required by 

this subsection. 

We estimate that the cost of providing planning assistance and 

compliance review in accordance with the terms of the bill would 

not exceed $100,000 per year. 

As I conclude, may I thank Congres~man Hughes for all the work 

he has done on that and all the citizens of South Jersey that have 

participated with Patty and the National Park Service in getting 

us to this point. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds on H.R. 2650 follows:] 
57 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARIC 

SERVICE, DEPAR'l'MENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARICS FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 2650, TO DESIGNATE THE MAURICE 

RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM. 

Auqust 5, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide your 

Subcomaittee with the views of the Department of the Interior on 

H.R. 2650. 

We stronqly recommend the enactment of this bill. 

H.R. 2650 would desiqnate approximately 35 miles of the Maurice 

River and its tributaries in New Jersey as components of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Manaqement of the river 

seqments would be pursuant to cooperative aqreements between the 

Secretary of the Interior and local municipalities. These 

aqreements would be consistent with river conservation plans 

approved by the Secretary. 

In 1987, Conqress desiqnated seqments of the Maurice and 

Manumuskin Rivers and Menantico Creek in New Jersey for study as 

potential components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Syst- (P.L. 100-33, approved May 7, 1987, 101 Stat. 299). The 

National Park Service has since completed the study of these 

rivers. A draft study repor~ was released for public review in 

June 1992, and the final report to the President is beinq 

reviewed within the Administration. 
2 

The study found that a total of 42.4 miles of the Maurice River 

and three of its tributaries were eligible for designation. We 

note that section J(d) of the bill would require the Secretary to 

continue to work with local municipalities for support of 

segments found eligible but not designated by this bill. We 

would expect to work with the local government concerning the 7.4 

miles not designated but found eligible, and report back to the 

Committees as required by this subsection. 

We estimate that the cost of providing planning assistance and 

compliance review in accordance with the terms of the bill would 

not exceed $100,000 per year. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 
59 

Mr. VENTO. As I understand it, there is just one additional river ~egment that could be added; is that right, to the Maurice River ~ll, Ms. Weber? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes, sir. Found eligible and not being designated 

now:, yes. Mr. VENTO. So does that slip back into the study status? It remains in the study status for right now until such time it is worked 

out; is that right? 

Ms. WEBER. That is right. 

Mr. VENTO. How long is that segril.ent? 

Ms. WEBER. Seven miles. 

Mr. VENTO. That is the 7-mile segment we are talking about? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. What portion is that? 

Ms. WEBER. The very southern section, with the confluence of the 

Delaware Bay. 

Mr. VENTO. Can you give us a characterization of that; its potential use or conflicts or unusual problems there that are to be resolved? 

Ms. WEBER. It is almost entirely intertidal salt-marsh and it is 

widely used for both shipping and recreational boating. The specific 

issue associated with that has more to do with the feeling of the 

local municipality than with the river and use issues. 

Mr. VENTO. So what would be the time frame? You think this 

would be, at least, for what, an additional three years or somethin? 

wtat would happen here; what would yon see as the time frame 

for consideration of it? 

Ms. WEBER. Three years is a very reasonable time frame. It is 

important to note that that very same municipality has already 

adopted a local river management plan that, at the local level, does 

provide for long-term protection for the values. 

Mr. VENTO. It is simply that there has not been agreement as to 

the national designation? 

Ms. WEBER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Where else do we have, Mr. Reynolds, similar types 

of provisions governing the local planned enforcement by local governments backed up by the national government? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will ask Patty to help me on this, but I believe, 

as an example, there is Egg Harbor River in New Jersey. 

Ms. WEBER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. That is in your region? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. Well, it is not in my region but our office 

does the assistance work in that area. 

Mr. VENTO. What about the Jacksonville or Jackson River in 

New England; is that not also under that same type of plan, Ms. 

Weber; wasn't that the first we did under this plan? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes, it is, although half of it is overseen by Forest 

Service, so there is dual management. 

Mr. VENTO. There is dual management, that is true. That is another complication. 

Do you have any information on how that is working at this 

time? 

Ms. WEBER. I understand it is working very well. 
60 

Mr. VENTO. I note Congresswoman Johnson contacted me about 

the Farmington River, which has undergone a study. That is, obviously, not in your area; is that right? 

Ms. WEBER. That is correct, but I do coordinate often with people 

from--

Mr. VENTO. So they are proposing a similar management plan 

there; is that correct? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes, similar management with some different specific provisions about the river. I don't know exactly, but it has 

something to do with boundaries. 

Mr. VENTO. We are only talking about four or five years experience here at the most, as I recall; is that correct? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So our optimism may not be well-founded in terms 

of this management system, although nothing negative so far. All 

the same protections apply to these rivers in terms of water 

projects? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. And other types of prohibitions in terms of the national government action? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reynolds, on page 8 of this bill, line 4 to line 20, do you want 

to elaborate and explain that to me a little bit? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. With your permission, I will ask Patty to discuss 

that with you. 

Ms. WEBER. Mr. Hughes, in developing specific responsibilities 

for Interior and the Park Service, understands the hard work and 

understanding at the local level to implement the local river management plan. The Park Service will proceed upon designation to 

flesh out that protection scenario and get the State and other Federal agencies component to afford long-term protection. 

Is that what you are particularly asking? 

Mr. HANSEN. The Park Service is just going to okay, sustain and 

ratify the local plans; is that what we are saying here? 

Ms. WEBER. I thank you for asking that question, it is a good 

question. There has already been a local river management plan 

adopted and implemented at the local level. 

Mr. HANSEN. So the Park Service, in effect, is going to embrace 

these local level plans and make those part of what you folks do; 

is that right? 

Ms. WEBER. So long as they meet the provisions of the act, and 

they do. 

Mr. HANSEN. So long as they meet the provisions of the act. 

Then turn to page 6, line 4, Maurice River, Upper segment, from 

one-half mile upstream from the Survey Station at Burcham Farm 

to the south side of the Millville sewage treatment plant. It abuts 

for 3.6 miles on a sewage treatment plant? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is that right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It ends at the sewage treatment plant. 

Ms. WEBER. These are geographic landmarks to describe the segments. 
61 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, it ends at the sewage treatment-to the 

south side of the Millville sewage treatment plant. So it comes and 

ends there at the sewage treatment plant, but it is touching? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Contiguous? 

Ms. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. And you accept all that, Mr. Reynolds, is that right; 

Park Service? 

Ms. WEBER. The discharge of the sewage treatment plant complies with all State and Federal laws. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is there; you use it. I guess it just seems to fly 

in the face of some of the things we have done around here, but, 

gosh, who am I to say what is wrong with a sewage treatment 

plant in the middle of the river. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. As long as the water quality of the aflluent of the 

sewage treatment plant as it enters the river is within the 

standards--

Mr. HANSEN. Say that again, does notMr. REYNOLDS. As long as it is within the standards of the Clean 

Water Act, then I don't think the Park Service has a problem with 

it. 

I think the monitoring that goes on in relationship to that sewage treatment plant and its abilities to discharge aflluent that 

meets the standards is very important, and the Park Service does 

not have control over that, but the Park Service is certainly interested that that be maintained, not only in this river but any river 

where sewage aflluent enters the river above any point that is in 

wild and scenic river status. 

Mr. HANSEN. I don't think I would consider the issue being 

whether or not the end result comes out of the sewage treatment 

plant and whether it could go in the river. People in San Francisco 

drink the-it goes right through time and time again. Well, never 

mind. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. HANSEN. Carrying that one step further. 

You normally don't see a sewage treatment plant contiguous to 

a wild and scenic river, is the point. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the point here is, unless this river is flowing 

north to south-the description here may be cumbersome, but the 

point is that from upstream, so that you are going a half mile north 

of the geologic, the USGS station to the south point, until you 

touch-the sewer treatment plant is not in the corridor, is what I 

understand. It is outside the designated area. 

I think the reason Mr. Reynolds is talking about water quality 

is because he thinks you are asking about whether the water quality of the river is such that it is worthy of designation. But what 

I am understanding here is that the sewer treatment plant is not 

in the ·corridor; is that correct? 

Ms. Weber, we cannot get nods in the record. They don't show 

up. 

Ms. WEBER. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So that is your concern; the sewer treatment plant 

is not in the river? 

Mr. HANSEN. Or how close it would be. 

76-068 - 94 - 3 
62 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know how close. . Mr. HANSEN. If the local people think this is fine, it is fine with 

me. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it meets the criteria for a national designation. 

Ms. WEBER. It does. 

Mr. HANSEN. In generalities, though, it is interesting to point 

out, if we look at these three particular bills, we are coming up 

with three different criteria. Like I say, it is difficult for me to establish the same criteria for all these different portions. Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would continue to yield? 

It is designated as a scenic river in this particular portion. That 

is the criteria here on this segment? 

Ms. WEBER. That is right. 

Mr. VENTO. Some of these are recreational, some are scenic, and 

I don't know that we have anything that is wild; is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So there are different nomenclature here. Does mean 

something as far as--

Mr. REYNOLDS. This is also consistent with action that has been 

taken in other rivers in multiple locations. 

Mr. VENTO. So my staff infonns me. It is consistent with the law 

in the act and the criteria, although I couldn't articulate all the differences between recreational, scenic, wild, and so forth, right here, 

at the spur of the moment, although somebody else could, if necessary. 

But the gentleman raises a point. But it is consistent with the 

act. 

Are there many instances where various facilities adjoin but are 

not designated in the various wild and scenic segments? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Would you repeat that? 

Mr. VENTO. Are there many instances in which various facilities 

adjoin but are not in designated wild and scenic rivers? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe the answer to that is, yes. If you would 

like elaboration, I will ask Patty to do so. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is this is not unique. We, for instance, 

don't put dams into, or water structures into wild and scenic rivers. 

So in this case, are there any water structures on segments designated as wild and scenic under recreation structures? 

Ms. WEBER. Are there any structures in--

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Ms. WEBER. There are currently boat piers. 

Mr. VENTO. But not water structures? 

Ms. WEBER. No dams, no water. Mr. VENTO. We have had people try to do that on occasion. So 

is there any flood protection on any of these rivers in the 

floodplains? 

Ms. WEBER. Are there floodplains? 

Mr. VENTO. Are there floodplain devices, such as levees? 

Ms. WEBER. Not physical floodplain protection, no. 

Mr. VENTO. What is the status of the floodplain; are there structures built in the floodplain? 

Ms. WEBER. Generally no, but it is a flat area and the State of 

New Jersey has a floodplain program, so they provide oversight. 
63 

Mr. VENTO. Well, of course, it seems like so often, when we get 

into these designations, it is not just one aspect but sometimes others that are not being followed in terms of zoning that would make 

some sense, like a floodplain insurance, and so forth, and those 

programs are all trying to work in concert. 

Does the gentleman have another question with regards to this 

matter? 

Mr. HANSEN. No, I don't. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff has cleared up "recreation wild and scenic" and shown the 

differences. I do think, though, just out of necessity, there has to 

be some latitude with everything we do by looking at it on a retail 

basis, and I compliment Mr. Reynolds for coming. Mr. VENTO. They have, apparently, not taken any shortcuts here, 

although I must say, I agree with you that if you look at the sort 

of modifications that have been made in terms of the segments 

here, to leave segments out, to put segments in. 

I would hand the gentleman my explanation sheet, which he has 

before him, and you begin to realize that they have been very careful to use this in · such a way that it is at least going to provide 

West Publishing Company with a lot of printing work. They are 

from my district and they do the laws. So they are always happy 

to see us pass something like this. 

In any case, I have no further questions on this matter. 

Mr. Reynolds, let me ask you to proceed with the testimony, 

then, and thank you, Ms. Weber, for your work in the southern 

New Jersey area and throughout your area. We appreciate it. 

Let me invite you, Mr. Reynolds, to proceed with the testimony 

on the Colonial Parkway and related subjects. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you. 

And with your permission I will invite Superintendent Alec 

Gould to come up. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, he is present to testify and to add his expertise 

to this issue. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a statement for 

the record and I would like to read most but not all of that statement, so I will skip portions of that statement. 

Mr. VENTO. I read it last night, and I appreciate getting it in 

time so I could do so. I have a number of questions on this matter. 

We will place the entire statement in the record. You can just 

proceed to summarize if you choose. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2487, a bill 

that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and 

to convey certain lands or interests in lands to improve the management, protection and administration of Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia. 

We recommend enactment of the bill. H.R. 2478 authorizes the 

Secretary to grant easements or a fee simple interest to the County 

of York, Virginia, without charge, for the operation of sewage dispose all systems. It also authorizes the acquisition of lands adjacent to the existing park boundary that are threatened by development and a 3.2-acre archeological site. 
64 

If enacted, this legislation would release the National Park Service from its current obligation to maintain sewer systems in Yorktown, Virginia. It would also override the current limitation on the 

width of the Colonial Parkway in the area between Mill Creek and 

Neck O'Land in order to protect the parkway's scenery in subdivision development. 

I will skip a few lines here. 

York county is willing to accept the sewer system if the Moore 

House Subdivision portion is upgraded prior to transfer. The National Park Service is willing to share the cost of the upgrade subject to the availability of funds. 

We believe such expense is cost effective relative to the cost of 

long-term capital improvements and operation and maintenance 

that would be required if the Service were to retain an interest in 

the system. Ongoing discussions with the county indicate the Park 

Service share of the upgrade would not exceed $110,000. 

A letter from York County is attached to the statement for inclusion in the record. 

We recommend the legislative language be changed to eliminate 

the granting of, quote, "a fee simple interest in land," end quote. 

We have determined that an easement in lands for the operation 

of the sewage-disposal system recommends an adequate interest for 

the county in the existing system while providing protection for 

park resources. Full ownership of the sewer pipes and certainly 

structures which support the operation would be granted to York 

County. 

Section 2 of the bill addresses the need to acquire additional land 

to protect the scenic integrity of the Colonial Parkway. The scenery 

along the Colonial Parkway between Neck O'Land Road and Mill 

Creek is threatened by the final phase of final development of a 

subdivision. This legislation is urgently needed to authorize the 

Secretary to acquire the existing woodland along the parkway before houses are constructed which would mar the scenic beauty of 

the parkway. 

The Colonial parkway was authorized as part of Colonial National Historic Park in the 1930s by Acts of Congress and Presidential Proclamations. The purpose of the Parkway is to connect 

Jamestown, Williamsburg and Yorktown with a scenic limited access motor road, made enjoyable for travelers, preservation of scenery, vistas, historic sites and a managed landscape that accentuates important national features and screens modern development. 

I will skip a few lines here. 

Unless additional land is acquired, it will not be possible to adequately screen a new and rapidly expanding subdivision from view. 

The property developer has voluntarily withheld from sale the 20 

lots closest to the parkway, but he is now saying he cannot delay 

his sales efforts any longer. 

This legislation will modify the boundary of the park to permit 

the acquisition of those lots subject to imminent development, as 

well as the lot that already contains a house and a small archeological site. We are hoping a nonprofit conservation organization will 

purchase the property in advance of this legislation. The boundary 

modification is supported by James City County. 
65 

The appraisal for these lands is currently being updated. We estimate the cost of acquisition to be in the neighborhood of $750,000. 

With the condition that easements be granted for the Yorktown 

and Moore House Subdivision sewer system, we recommend enactment of this legislation. 

We appreciate your willingness to consider this matter in an expedited manner so that we may take advantage of the opportunity 

to protect the resources of the Colonial Parkway. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions. I would also like to thank you, Chairman Vento, for having this 

hearing so soon on a bill that was introduced by Congressman 

Bateman. 

I also thank Congressman Bateman for doing so. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds on H.R. 2478 follows:] 
66 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MID-ATLANTIC 

REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARI<S, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, 

HOUSE .COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 2478, · TO 

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACQUIRE AND TO CONVEY 

CERTAIN LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT, 

PROTECTION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF COLONIAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

PARK. 

AUGUST 5, 1993 

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

Department of Interior's views on H.R. 2487, a bill that would 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and to convey 

certain lands or interests in lands to improve the management, 

protection and administration of Colonial National Historical 

Park in Virginia. 

We recommend enactment of the bill. 

H.R. 2478 authorizes the Secretary to grant easements or a fee 

simple interest to the County of York, Virginia, without charge, 

for the operation of sewage-disposal systems. It also authorizes 

the acquisition of lands adjacent to the existing park boundary 

that are threatened by development, and a 3.2 acre archaeological 

site. 

If enacted, this legislation would release the National Park 

Service from its current obligation to maintain sewer systems in 

Yorktown, Virginia. It would also override the current 

limitation on the width of the Colonial Parkway in the area 
67 

2 

between Mill Creek and Neck O'Land Road in order to protect the 

Parkway's scenery from subdivision development. 

In 1948 and 1956, Congress directed the National Park Service to 

design and construct sewer systems to serve Federal and nonFederal properties in the area of Yorktown, a community within 

and adjacent to Colonial National Historical Park. At that time 

York County was a rural area with limited financial resources and 

population. The County now has a fully functioning Department of 

Environmental Services, which operates sewer systems throughout 

the remainder of the County, as well as the personnel and 

equipment to administer, maintain and operate the Yorktown sewer 

system. 

In the mid-1970's, the National Park Service provided York County 

with approximately $73,500 to improve the Yorktown system and 

take over its maintenance and operation . The portion of the 

system that serves the Moore House subdivision has not been 

upgraded , and is in need of approximately $203,000 to 

rehabilitate the system to the current county standards, 

according to a recent study. York County is willing to accept 

the sewer system, if the Moore House subdivision portion is 

upgraded prior to transfer. The National Park Service ·1s willing 

to share the cost of the upgrade, subject to the availability of 

funds. We believe that such expense is cost effective relative 

to the cost of long-term capital improvements and operation and 
68 

3 

maintenance that would be required if the Service ware to retain 

an interest in the system. Ongoing discussions with the county 

indicate that the Park Service share of the upgrade would not 

exceed $110,000. A letter from York County is attached to this 

statement tor inclusion in the record. 

We recommend that the legislative language be changed to 

eliminate the granting of "a fee simple interest in land." We 

have determined that an easement in land for the operation of the 

sewage-disposal system represents an adequate interest !or .the 

County in the existing system while -providing protection for park 

resources. Full ownership of the sewer pipes and several 

structures which support the operation would be granted to York 

county. 

Section 2 of the bill addresses the need to acquire additional 

land to protect the scenic integrity of the Colonial Parkway. 

The scenery along the Colonial Parkway between Neck O'Land Road 

and Mill Creek is threatened by the final phase of development of 

a subdivision. This legislation is urgently needed to authorize 

the Secretary to acquire the existing woodland along the Parkway 

before houses are constructed which would mar the scenic beauty 

of the Parkway.. -- · ~! 

The Colonial Parkway was authorized as a part of Colonial 

National Historical Park in the 1930's by Acts of Congress and 
69 

4 

Presidential Proclamations. " The purpose of the Parkway is to 

connect Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown with a scenic 

limited access motor road, made enjoyable for travelers through 

the preservation of scenery, vistas, historic sites and a managed 

landscape that accentuates important natural features and screens 

modern development. 

Existing Parkway legislation calls for an average corridor width 

of no more than 500 feet . The road was, in most cases, built in 

the middle of the corridor. In the area between Mill Creek and 

Neck O'Land Road, however, the Parkway was built closer to the 

northern boundary to avoid marshlands. It is in this location 

that development is currently taking place. Unless additional 

land is acquired, it will not be possible to adequately screen a 

new, and rapidly expanding, subdivision from view. 

The property developer has voluntarily withheld from sale the 20 

lots closest to the Parkway, but he is now saying that he cannot 

delay his sales efforts any longer. This legislation will modify 

the boundary of the park to permit the acquisition of those lots 

subject to imminent development, as well as a lot that already 

contains a house, and a small archeological site. We are hoping 

that a non-profit conservation organization will purchase the 

property in advance of this legislation. The boundary 

modification is supported by James City County. 
70 

5 

The appraisal tor these lands is currently being updated. We 

estimate the cost of acquisition to be in the neighborhood of 

$750,000. 

With the condition that easements be qranted for the Yorktown and 

Moore House Subdivision sewer system, we recommend enactment of 

this legislation. 

We appreciate your willingness to consider this matter in an 

expedited manner, so that we may take advantage of the 

opportunity to protect the resources of Colonial National 

Historical Park. I will be pleased to answer any questions. 
OJU1rnT I\DIIIINr.lmtATUk 

"'-lM.-

July 30, 1993 

Mr. Alec Gould 

superintendent 

71 

COUNIY OF YORK 

VIRGINIA 

Colonial National Historical Park 

P.O. Box 210 

Yorktown, Vir~inia 23690 

Cear Mr. Gould: 

Subject: Moore Housa Road Sanitary Sewer System 

-, ...... Jl, 

I 

I 

•· 

~· 

With reference to the meeting held on July 30, lt93, with yod. »aul 

Nardo, John cunn, Mary Sinclair and me concarninq tbe ~ .. ot the Moore House Road sanitary sewer system to York county, pleaaa be advised or the !allowing: 

1. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on 1tbra~ ~D, 

1992, 3Uthorizing the County Administrator to accapt a ~iqhtof-way grant and a !ee si~ple ownership of the saw.r !•rat•• 

and "o accept the sum of $203,200 !rom the National .l&l:k 

Service to bring the system up to County standard•. 

2. As this issue was addressed by formal Board actibn, Ut will 

take an additional action to modify the resolution·outl~ in rtem ~ above. 

J. After further ravJ.ew of the situation I am PI"•~- ~o 

recommend to the Board at Supervisors th1n: the 1992 Ra-ilution 

be moditied as tallows: 

a. That the County agree to do at no coat tja uli PM'lt 

Service ~at engineering and maintana- -•l·tbeChcan lba 

accomplished with County forces aDd ~~pee~. 

b. That the Park Service pay !or all work that ~t1 ~to be contracted out. It is estimated tlat Uh1•·c080 wou~a 

no-c exceed $1.~0, ooo. . ' 

This approach would result in a close to fifty-titty _.l~t ot the project costs. 
Mr. Alec Gould 

July 30, lUl 

Peqe 2 

72 

In addi~ion, tna County is procaedinq vitll tn• rellabil1tatjM~t ~ 

the Read street sewacra Puap Station rather tbaD t11a ~ of 

a new pump •~ation in -rornown. Aa part of tllia ·wodl:, ·~t.be• 

plana to dismantle and baCk till, at it8 coat, tlla •ol4 t ~ 

and tricklinV tiltar from tile old Parlt Service -9• PlaD .:I It: ia· antieipatecS that tnt. coat vill lla in tile ranqa o~ tset-?O,doo. 

Givan tna liUlcrnieudA o! tnua collbined coata, I ~ = 1 • that ena County part:icipata in coat aharinq on the Neore·H a...t sewer syat.,. to any C}X'aatar extent. I a• aura tllat you ~n1:Mid 

that thi s r4preaants only Ms. sinclair's and my paaitlo~ ~ tbia 

time and is subj act to approval o! a ma;ori ty ot:· the IIDalPct~ 

However, I !eel that this approach could warlt aa the ba~1~ ot a~ 

aqui tabla sattle111ent: o! a lonq atandinq issue that 1111• alrelldy 

absorbed too much t i me and enerqy, Given your t .. linq enat this 

approach will be acceptable t:o congressional atatt I plaft ~ ~· 

t:his formally considered at the next: Board aaetin9 vltlcft ia 

scheduled Cor A~q~se 5, l99l. 

Please !eel !rea to call 1! you have any !urtner qu .. ~...,. .,.. ez>ia 

isaue. 

Copy to: G. Paul Nardo 

Mary Sincla1r 
73 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Gould, for your 

presence. A lot of tough questions here, obviously. If we had done 

this a decade ago or so, it would not have been the dilemma that 

I suppose should have been anticipated; that there might have 

been residential development in this area. 

As I understand the situation here, there is a portion of the 

parkway-and the average width of the corridor is no more than 

500 feet. As your testimony on page 4 indicates, I am reading, the 

addition between Mill Creek and Neck O'Land Road to the parkway is to avoid marshlands, and that is the area we are talking 

about; is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And it is in this location that the development is currently taking place. So the corridor is consistently 500 feet but the 

road had to be pushed to one side of that corridor; is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. The center line; is that right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I thought I read someplace that there was a 200-foot 

corridor. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is within the City of Williamsburg. 

Mr. VENTO. So that is the only point. So that is not-it is 250 

from the center line, as you point out, and so in this case, thoughhow close are you to your line, the parkway? 

Mr. GoULD. We just own 100 feet from the center line of the 

parkway. 

Mr. VENTO. So, in other words, on one side of the parkway, in 

essence, you have 400 feet from the center line, and on this side, 

you have 100 because of the marshland? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So the alternative, of course, would be you could not 

move the road without damaging the marshlands. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. And it would not be possible to 

screen this side of the parkway. How long a segment of the road is this? 

Mr. GoULD. It is about a quarter mile. 

Mr. VENTO. A quarter mile. Your testimony last night was 650. 

I understand now the estimate is up to 750? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct, and that includes all of the parcels of land. The 650 included the 20 lots that are not built upon. 

Mr. VENTO. They are not built upon but there are some improvements on them already in preparation? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is a house on one lot, as you know, and 

there are some improvements in terms of pipes into the lots on 

some of the other lots. 

Mr. VENTO. So you anticipate this would be a willing seller issue; 

is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, we do. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, the problem is once you get the authorization, that does not mean you have the money; does it? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have dollars set aside from land and water 

to--can you prioritize this? · 
74 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would prioritize this. It has not been set 

aside at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it is a pretty open question. To me, it 

sort of speaks to the fact that we, obviously-some years ago now, 

Mr. Reynolds, we had passed a boundary study bill that had a lot 

of trouble. 

In fact, it was the same evening I was working on that issue 

with the Clarks Fork River and we had the Arizona Wilderness bill 

that we got in. The Boundary bill passed. I couldn't remember 

which one it was. 

In any case, it was the lOlst Congress, and my staff reminds me, 

but I couldn't remember which bill it was in contention, whether 

it was Chairman Udall's bill or my bill. In any case, we were looking forward to trying to get out front and trying to avoid some of 

these types of problems rather than having to act on an emergency 

basis. 

But this is always difficult to do, and so I would just reference 

that in terms of the statement that we have tried to-and I guess 

it is probably impossible, given the number of units that we have, 

to not come up with a problem once in a while, but it would, obviously, be far better if we didn't have the Manassases of the world 

and even the friendly type of purchases. 

You don't have the general authority that you can deal with this? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. To my knowledge, we do not, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. I was just wondering because I know they had made 

some adjustments at the Delaware Water Gap, at one time, for 

miles out into the area, to buy railroad track. And I was wondering 

if perhaps in this particular instance, if you could go for 10 miles, 

I was wondering if a quarter mile would be considered too much? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't believe so, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you understand the dilemma I am facing? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I understand perfectly, sir. I would like to comment. 

I would say we are as frustrated, and I am as frustrated as you 

are that we had not identified this sooner. I would like to comment 

the superintendent had identified this sometime ago, over a year 

ago, and did exactly what he should do to put it up to the Park 

Service. 

The Park Service, up through the Director, agreed that this 

should become a legislative matter much earlier than it is today 

and was not able to advance it. 

Mr. VENTO. I am informed this park, of course, was pre-LWCF, 

and that makes a difference with regards to the technicalities, with 

regards to Delaware Water Gap, too, in minor boundary adjustment authority. 

So maybe what we should be looking at here is an overall view 

of the map. Are there similar problems like this, Superintendent 

Gould, that are going to have you in here every other year here for 

the next few years on minor boundary adjustments? 

Mr. GoULD. No. We do have a few other parcels we need to acquire, but they are already within the authorized boundary. This 

particular section, there was specific legislation which said 500 

feet, so that is why we had to come back to you all for authorization on this. 
75 

Mr. REYNOLDS. May I add that this is within the general management plan and the Superintendent and his team carefully 

looked at that issue so that we would not have to be coming back 

every year. 

Mr. VENTO. What has happened with our gas pipeline controversy down there with the Coast Guard? 

Mr. GouLD. You settled that. It is not going through the park. 

They have not decided yet just what they are going to do. They are 

looking at other options, the last I heard. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And just so you would know, as Regional Director, I appreciate that settlement and I think we settled it together. 

Mr. VENTO. We wanted to be accommodating. We have our 

friend, our colleagues, and everything seems reasonable, but if you 

are to have a national policy, where you are going to provide easements through a historic site and you are going to dig it up and 

put in a gas pipeline, I didn't know any way that I could say no 

to anyone then with regards to crossing on the resource. So, we 

tried and struggled, but I couldn't see any alternative. 

I have some other questions, but let me yield to my colleague in 

the event he has a question or two. 

Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don't mean to be picayune about how you do your business, because I know it is very difficult with all the restrictions that Congress gives you, but I have been given to understand that the departmental guidelines limit the agency involving themselves in 

lands which are outside the boundaries; is that right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. Without authorization by Congress, yes. Although I do not believe there is any ·prohibition from the National 

Park Service-matter of fact, I think just the opposite is true; that 

the Park Service has the responsibility to ensure that what happens along its boundaries does not adversely affect or provide derogation to the resources for which the park will set aside. 

Mr. HANSEN. So, then, you can involve yourself in negotiations 

outside of the boundaries; is that right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is that in contradiction to your memorandum toRegional Directors from the Director of April 17, 1985? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I would appreciate it if you would read me 

that. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will be happy to give you a copy of it. "No agreements, formal or informal, should be made by field managers or 

their staffs." 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No agreements have been made yet. 

Mr. HANSEN. I see. Let me ask you one more. 

Have you signed a letter of intent on negotiations on this? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, we have not. 

Mr. HANSEN. Pardon, sir? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, we have not. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is that outside of your own guidelines? Doesn't your 

own guidelines state you are supposed to sign a letter of intent. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, and we will do so at the appropriate time. 

Mr. HANSEN. How do you determine what the appropriate time 

is? Apparently, you have negotiated with the developer. You have 
76 

started talking money. Wouldn't that be before all those things, Mr. 

Reynolds? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I would like to research that before I respond in detail, and I would be glad to, but as I understand it, we 

are not in violation of--

Mr. HANSEN. As I say, I don't want to be picayune, and I apologize if you feel that I have, but I do feel we have established rules 

and regulations and that we should follow them. You feel you are 

okay on this? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. HANSEN. No contradiction to your own rules that you have 

established or that the Director has established? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I do not believe so. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your responses, and do you want to 

put any of that in the record, the documentation, or not? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chainnan, it is not that big a deal to me. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know, I just thought if you didn't get the 

whole thing, because you are referencing it. Can you give us the 

reference for the document? 

Mr. HANSEN. Sure, be more than happy to give you the reference. 

It is a memorandum to the Regional Directors and Project Managers from the Director, dated April 17, 1985. Talks about letters 

of intent; goes through the regulations and the procedures that 

these gentlemen will go through before they start discussing appraisals. 

Mr. VENTO. And the Regional Director at that time was Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, let's see. 

Mr. VENTO. Director or Regional Director Coleman? I thought it 

would be helpful to have the reference. 

Mr. HANSEN. And, Mr. Chainnan, I don't want to make a big 

deal of crossing the T's or dotting the l's. I just wonder sometimes, 

as I see the Park Service, because I have more parks in my area 

than I think anybody, and I just wonder if we do things that just 

work out or we do things because we follow the rules. 

When they turn around on us, they sure hammer us in private 

industry on following the rules. Mr. REYNOLDS. As I recall that memorandum, one of the major 

points of it was to ensure that the national office, that the Washington office knew what was going on and approved of it prior to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Can you speak a little louder? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. As I remember that memorandum, one of the intents of it was to ensure that regional managers and project managers did not do things in regards to letters of intent that the 

Washington office did not know about or did not have the opportunity to review prior to those being done. 

I believe that, in this case, both the previous Regional Director 

to me, and myself, have known all along and have taken the appropriate actions with the Director, whichever one it was, over the two 

cases, Mr. Ridenour or Mr. Kennedy, that they knew what was progressing as time went on. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 
77 

Mr. VENTO. It is a question of control, I guess, that when you get 

parks on the ground, you have to give the field manager, the superintendent, the authority to do the job, rather than to keep kicking 

the buck upstairs, I think. 

But I had some questions along the same lines that are probably 

equally or more uncomfortable than Mr. Hansen's. That deals with 

the issue of the sewer line matter. As I understand it, there are 

36 private residences now using that sewer line, plus there is a 

public entity. 

Mr. Gould, probably I would like you to respond to questions, unless Mr. Reynolds wants to join in. 

Mr. Gould, is that correct? What is the public entity that we 

have on that road that we put the sewer system in for them, the 

Moore House development? 

Mr. GoULD. It is called Moore House Subdivision and the Park 

Service put the system in based on the act of Congress, 1948, 1956. 

Mr. VENTO. What is Moore House? 

Mr. GoULD. It is just a subdivision near the Village of Yorktown. 

Mr. VENTO. And we put it in based on this particular authority, 

but they are all private residences; is that correct, the 36, the 

Moore House Subdivision? What was the purpose in our being involved in this? 

Mr. GouLD. Well, the purpose was to serve our facilities, and 

then the idea was that since we were putting a sewer system in 

to serve our facilities, then--

Mr. VENTO. Sort of what is missing here, since there are 36 private residences, and the idea was to make certain they were not 

using a drain system or cesspool type of system to actually hook 

up, made more sense, I guess, to somebody? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know if it made more sense to us. I expect, 

at the time, there were assessments and other types of activities 

that were perceived for the hookup from these private residents; is 

that correct? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes, I understand they paid a hookup fee when--

Mr. VENTO. So there are regular maintenance fees and assessments, then, that take place from those 36 private residences? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. Mr. VENTO. That the Park Service had administered; is that correct? 

Mr. GoULD. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. Now, I understand that recently, and I think the Director or the Regional Director's testimony spoke to this, that a few 

years ago $73,000 was spent to upgrade the Yorktown line from the 

Park Service money? 

Mr. GouLD. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. Now, was that on the entire line or just this subdivision line? 

Mr. GoULD. That was not this subdivision. This was the Village 

of Yorktown system. 

Mr. VENTO. The Yorktown line? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. 
78 

Mr. VENTO. What is the relationship-! mean at this particular 

point, the Village of Yorktown line, how did the Park Service get 

involved in maintaining that? 

Mr. GoULD. We were directed by Congress to build both systems, 

and we were---

Mr. VENTO. Build both the Yorktown line and the private residents' line; is that what you mean by both systems? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. You were directed to build them in 1948; is that correct? 

Mr. GoULD. Well, in 1948, we were directed to do a study, and 

then in 1956, based on the study, Congress directed us and appropriated money for the last to be built. 

One of the reasons for that was Yorktown was a very small, or 

York County was a very small or rural county at the time and, at 

the time, we were the people that used most of the sewerage, and 

also there was this big celebration--

Mr. VENTO. Were you directed by the Appropriations Committee 

to spend $73,000 a few years ago to upgrade the Yorktown line? 

Who directed you to do that? 

Mr. GouLD. I assume---

Mr. VENTO. Was that an administration decision? 

Mr. GoULD. I would assume so. I was not there then, of course. 

Mr. VENTO. There was no legislative action on that? That is what 

you implied by saying you were directed. But this was an administration decision to spend $73,000 to upgrade the Yorktown line? 

Mr. GoULD. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So, Mr. Reynolds, do you know what the justification 

was for that? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I do not. 

Mr. VENTO. You see, we have this situation where there are a 

few things that have gone on now with regards to this line. For instance, that is a big piece of the rehabilitation mopey of the entire 

region's budget at that point, in that year that I cited a few years 

ago. I didn't cite a year, but it would be 1990, I guess, or 1991. And 

today, for instance, it would be almost 10 percent of the region's 

budget for rehabilitation of the sewer line and private residences 

in Yorktown. 

Mr. GoULD. Well, I might respond to that, if you would like? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. GoULD. The reason for participating in that $73,000 upgrade 

was so York County would agree to take over the Yorktown system, 

which they did. We have not thought about it, worried about it, 

worked on it at all since then. So it certainly was a plus for the 

park to have that happen in the mid-1970s. And also, we have the 

most use in Yorktown. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Gould, I understand this is an unusual arrangement, but did the authority or the law that provided for this in 

1956, provide or allow the Park Service to allow the homeowners 

to pay their sewer fees to York County instead of the Park Service, 

as an example of the problem? 

Mr. GoULD. The legislation, if I understand it, said they were to 

pay for the maintenance of the system. My understanding is they 

paid the Park Service, well, for both systems until the mid-1970s. 
79 

Then in the mid-1970s, I suppose the people in Yorktown started 

paying the county and continued to pay the Park Service until 

1986, in the Moore House area, at which time, the people that were 

there then thought they were moving toward a turnover of the line 

to the county. And so at that point, the county started assuming 

maintenance and the people started paying York County instead of 

the Park Service. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think there is a question of authority here, 

but were you there in 1986 when this decision was made? 

Mr. GouLD. No, I was not. 

Mr. VENTO. A decision apparently was made to allow the homeowners to pay their sewer fees to York County, but I guess I have 

to-the Moore House addition dollars are now paid to the county; 

is that correct? 

Mr. GouLD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. But that is the money that should be used for rehabilitation, and the Park Service no longer receives fees on that; is 

that correct? 

Mr. GoULD. That is the position we maintained with the county 

for a number of years, including the first couple of years I was 

there. The county's position is that is just for routine maintenance 

and we will do the routine maintenance, but when it comes to rehabilitation, that money does not cover or does not fully cover rehabilitation. 

Mr. VENTO. So that fees should pay for part of the rehabilitation, 

if you are charging a fee or some sort of tax, then. Over a period 

of time, it should pay for routine as well as long-term rehabilitation; shouldn't it? 

Mr. GoULD. Well, that was our--

Mr. VENTO. They have been collecting the fee since 1986, so that 

has been basically eight years of collection? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. Well, that is one of the reasons why we have 

said we think you all should, at least should foot part of the bill. 

And until very recently, they steadfastly maintained you have to do 

the rehabilitation before we will take over the system; that is the 

way we do it with everybody. But in the last few weeks, they have 

backed off of that position and are willing to assume part of the 

cost now. 

Mr. VENTO. So you are actually, in order to achieve the entire 

transfer of this system, you are going to have to spend something 

in excess of $100,000 now; is that correct, based on the letter that 

you have that Mr. Reynolds submitted for the record? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct, approximately $110,000. 

Mr. VENTO. And then the transfer will be complete. We will no 

longer be in the business at that time of maintaining sewer lines 

for the Moore House addition and/or for Yorktown? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. At that point-will we have to make any payments 

to the sewer authority at that time or the county, or whoever takes 

this process over at that time? 

Mr. GoULD. We would pay the same thing as every other user 

in York County pays. The sewerage billings are normally based on 

the water meter. 

Mr. VENTO. You are not paying that today? 
80 

Mr. GoULD. Yes, we are. 

Mr. VENTO. You are paying that today? 

Mr. GouLD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. You have transferred over the entire system, then, 

that you had to the Yorktown authority? 

Mr. GoULD. Well, we have not legally transferred it, but we have 

an agreement with them that they will do the maintenance and collect the fees. 

Mr. VENTO. But is there any embedded value in what you are 

transferring? You are, obviously, the owners of it now; that is their 

position. But you are not getting any credit for ownership; is that 

right? 

Mr. GoULD. I would say that is basically right. I don't consider 

it a value; I consider it on the other side of the ledger. 

Mr. VENTO. You think it is a negative. Who owned the sanitary 

sewer plant; was that always owned by the county? 

Mr. GouLD. We had the plant and it operated until the mid1970s, at which time that plant stopped operating and the sewerage started going into the Hampton Roads sanitary sewerage treatment plant. 

Mr. VENTO. And then you began paying a differential fee, I 

guess, based on the ownership of your own connecting-was that 

a negotiated matter or was that pretty much a standard fee that 

everybody else is paying for their volume? 

Mr. GouLD. It is the standard fee. 

Mr. VENTO. But they were collecting the fees, so has your fee 

gone down as they have collected the fees from the other subdivisions? 

Mr. GoULD. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Your fee has not gone down? 

Mr. GoULD. Our fee is exactly the same as everybody else's. 

Mr. VENTO. But the point is you are just paying at the volume 

of water that you use and others are paying in the volume that 

they use; is that correct? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. The concern I have here is whether we are paying-

! assume we are not paying for the private residences, whatever 

they have? 

Mr. GOULD. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Even if they are connected to your system? 

Mr. GoULD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Reynolds, did you have something you wanted 

to say? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think you just clarified it. Your question in the 

past was we collected the fees from the residents and then paid 

their fees plus our fees; is that correct? 

Mr. VENTO. That is right. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And then they stopped paying their fees to us. 

They paid them directly to the county and at that point, we did not 

technically turn over as much money; correct? We just kept paying 

our fees? 

Mr. GoULD. Right. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. So, is that clear? 
81 

Mr. VENTO. It is clear. I just didn't understand it was by volume, 

because they are still moving the sanitary products through your 

system, I assume. I assume they are part of the system that uses 

your system as a common system, but you are not receiving anything for the value of what you have in the ground right now in 

terms of the connecting systems? 

Mr. GoULD. It is not an asset, it is a liability. 

Mr. VENTO. It is a liability in a sense, but there are rights-ofway, and so forth. Does this actually run through the Park Service 

property? 

Mr. GoULD. Some of it does and some of it does not. 

Mr. VENTO. And some does not necessarily simply serve the 

park? 

Mr. GouLD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. It is to serve other areas, and so I guess--

Mr. GoULD. Right. Mr. VENTO [continuing]. That is another question raised with regard to who obviously, in terms of utility crossing and so forth, and 

whether they should be paid anything in terms of an easement on 

that. Isn't that an open question? 

Mr. GoULD. Yes. We normally do, or we are, I guess starting, as 

a National Park Service, to charge people when they put lines 

across our properties for non-park uses. In this case, there are park 

uses involved. 

Mr. VENTO. There are some park uses but there are some nonpark uses. It is minor. Is that what you would say; a minor nonpark use? 

Mr. GoULD. Well, in some cases, it is quite a few houses, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is, I guess, what is this easement worth? 

These are questions that you are going to have to deal with. What 

is the easement worth? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Part of that question is would the lines have to 

be there regardless of the private users or if we were the only ones 

using it, would we still have to have the lines. 

Mr. VENTO. You are at the end of the line, aren't you? The Park 

Service is at the end of the line, aren't they? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. At the beginning, depending on which way you 

look at it. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, at the one end. 

Mr. GoULD. It is a mosaic, a mixture. 

Mr. VENTO. Obviously, you are not receiving any value for your 

lines and you have the lines going across without an easement 

issue, so there are relative questions that have to be addressed. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, and I think the position that we are in and 

the reason we are supporting this legislation is that all of that, as 

you have indicated eloquently, is complicated to figure out and 

there seems to be a fair mix of sharing between us and the county 

that we are supporting. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, normally, when you first do an easement, you 

have some reason, some use and it is defined. Is this going to be 

defined? Is this easement going to be defined in the agreements as 

to what you are going to do? And you say you are not going to take 

any value on this; is that right? 
82 

Mr. GouLD. It will be precisely defined. We would also expect to 

put a reverter clause in there, that if that ever stops being used 

for those purposes, it would revert back to the Park Service. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't know, but I am going to pay close attention to that particular provision of the bill in terms of what occurs 

here. I am not expecting to be giving someone a difficult time for 

no reason but, on the other hand, I think it is park land and it has 

a value in terms of utilization for that purpose. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, obviously, if you have further questions 

that you want answered in different ways, or that needs more detail or more clarification, as you well know, you are free to ask and 

we will provide it. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I am concerned about this matter, because it 

does not appear to me, at least on the surface--well, there are a 

lot of issues of private use of public lands. 

It is one thing when you are trying to do something for convenience, but it sounds to me like all of a sudden we are not only trying to get the easement, but we end up paying for them to take 

over the line and to rehabilitate it where they are getting the use 

of it, where there are some embedded values. 

In terms of cost and in terms of the line, even though it needs 

rehabilitation, it is far less than what it would cost to put in a 

whole new line. Do you expect a whole new line to be put in here, 

Mr. Gould? 

Mr. GoULD. No. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Not at this time, but not very many years--

Mr. VENTO. Well, you are giving an easement here for what, for 

how much volume, for what purpose? We just went through this on 

the gas line issue. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. So part of the question is what is the purpose of 

the easements? 

Mr. VENTO. What is the purpose and nature of the easements, 

yes. Is it principally for Park Service and the private use incidental 

to it or what is the nature of that; and should we be paying them 

to take--1 don't think we should be paying them to take the easements. 

If we are giving an easement, to me, that would be equalizing 

the value. 

I know you have negotiated hard to get them to come down, but 

I don't know that we are quite there yet. Mr. Gould, this is making 

a tough job for him. 

Mr. GouLD. We need to give this to York County so bad. If tomorrow morning those pipes would cave in, it would have to be a 

major repair and we would be responsible for doing it. 

We don't have the expertise or the equipment. This needs to be 

a county function and we have been negotiating rather unsuccessfully on this Moore House thing for 8 or 10 years. 

I appreciate you and your staff being so interested in it. I think 

we are just that far away from getting it resolved. We have to get 

it resolved. 

Mr. VENTO. I simply want to make certain that we are not buying into having a major trunk line in terms of a sewer system put 

through the park system. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think that is very fair for us to be sure of. 
83 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know, maybe I am worried about something 

that is not probable. I am not on the ground there as you are, Mr. 

Gould, living with this everyday, but it seemsMr. REYNOLDS. Probable or not, I think we should protect against 

those kinds of things. 

Mr. VENTO. So it is not just my staff and that these are just 

questions that came out of the blue, you might say. Well, let me 

thank you. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Is that why Heather is wearing blue? 

Mr. VENTO. Let me thank you for your testimony and for your 

effort on this bill on the Colonial Parkway and we will move to our 

public witnesses at this time. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. GoULD. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER LOOKABAUGH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, CUMBERLAND COUNfY, 

NJ 

Mr. VENTO. Let me invite Jennifer Lookabaugh, with the Board 

of Chosen Freeholders, Cumberland County, New Jersey; Ms. Jane 

Morton Galetto, Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and 

its Tributaries, Inc.; and Beth Norcross, with the American Rivers 

to please come forward. 

And Beth has a statement on both the Red River and the Maurice River and its tributaries. 

Ms. LoOKABAUGH. Chairman Vento, my name is Jennifer 

Lookabaugh and I am Deputy Director of the Cumberland County 

Board of Chosen Freeholders; that is, alias Vice Chair of the Board 

of Commissioners, the County Board. 

February 14, 1986 would have been a Valentine's Day like any 

other, if it were not for the gift that the New Jersey Hazardous 

Waste Facilities Siting Commission decided to give to Cumberland 

County. It was on that day that Maurice River Township was 

named as one of four potential sites for a State-sponsored hazardous waste landfill. 

There was a lot of hard work by a lot of dedicated individuals 

in our county, and during the course of this, in May 1987, Cumberland County in the Maurice River area was delisted from potential sites. It became evident to us, though, that this would be an 

area that would continually be revisited by similar sitings if it were 

not for some extraordinary protection that we chose in this area. 

So it was that we embarked on the task, the six-year task, of trying to achieve designation ofthis particular river. And it is "Morris 

River." The further away you get it is the "Maurice," and if you get 

real close to the river, some of the people only use one syllable to 

pronounce it. 

I am here today to tell you there has been these six years of tremendous dedication and hard work by many people to assemble the 

consensus to include these outstanding waterways in the national 

wild and scenic river system. I also want you to know, it was worth 

the effort to reach local agreement. 

There were some questions this morning about the nature of the 

local plans. I want to assure the committee and yourself that these 
84 

local plans were developed in coordination with the National Park 

Service and the Cumberland County Planning Board, and they 

meet the criteria. The difference is that they were developed locally, and we felt it was very important to have all their interests 

before we went for designation. 

Congressman Hughes set this forward earlier, and I think it was 

a wise plan. It might have been a longer route, but we really did, 

we worked toward consensus, we have it now and we feel comfortable with it. 

I am proud of the role county officials and local citizens played 

in making this plan a reality. The county's planning and development department, under the guidance of its Director Steven Kehs, 

devoted considerable time to discussing and debating the critical issues in advance of the Federal action. 

This effort enabled us to come to you today with having developed significant public awareness and acceptance for the worthy 

goals of the wild and scenic river designation. 

There are many people who played critical roles in the success 

of our effort, far too many to name each one. I would like to recognize the leadership and dedication of Mayor John Feltes of Maurice 

River Township, who, from the beginning, supported the inclusion 

in the wild and scenic river designation, and has been with us all 

the way. He deserves credit for doing what was right instead of 

what might have been politically expedient. 

I would also like to thank the leaders and members of Citizens 

United to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries. These individuals, Jane Morton Galetto and Donald Fauerbach, with me 

today, have devoted countless hours of volunteer time to this task. 

I am grateful, both as their freeholder and their friend, for the 

immeasurable impact they have had on our success. 

Finally, I would like to note that in addition to the fine efforts 

of many county and local officials, it was our Congressman, Bill 

Hughes, who assembled the final pieces of this difficult task. Without his leadership and commitment, we would have settled for 

something less than the comprehensive package we are bringing 

before you today. 

I was pleased to hear Congressman Hughes say today that for 

19 years this was a very significant effort on his part. There are 

so few times in our political and governmental careers that we get 

to say something is different because we were there, and this is one 

of those issues, out of what we see as many, but what he feels 

strongly is a strong one, and that Bill Hughes will be able to look 

back on his career and say he made this very large difference to 

our area. 

We do recognize, however, that our work is not done; that as we 

work together federally and locally, that there will be issues that 

we are going to have to deal with. We have, however, worked 

through many contacts and established friendships and a basis for 

these conversations. 

It means that we will be protecting the national resources of an 

area and building a more prosperous future for our county. It 

means working with our agricultural business and civic leaders to 

address the many issues that have been raised in this study proc-
85 

ess in ways that protect our environment and promote these kinds 

of economic objectives. 

Cumberland County is a wonderful place to live. By protecting 

our important natural resources, we are assuring coming generations their quality of life and their environment will be assets they 

can use to build a more prosperous future for their children. 

We look forward to working with Patty Weber again-there is 

that name again; and rightfully so-and other outstanding members of the Park Service to make the vision that is embodied in 

these river designations a reality. Thank you for the opportunity to address you here today. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lookabaugh follows:] 
86 

Remarks by Jennifer Lookabaugh, Deputy Director 

Cumberland CoUiity, New Jersey, Board of Chosen Freeholders 

To the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

SuiJcommittee on Nutional Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Au~:ust 5, 1993 

Chairman Vento, members of the House Subcommittee on National Paiks, Forests, and 

Public Lands, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jennifer Lookabaugh, and I am Deputy Director 

of the Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders. 

February 14, 1986 would have been a Valentine's Day like any other if it were not for the gift 

that the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission decided to give Cumberland 

County. It was on that day that Maurice River Township was named as one offour potential sites 

for a State sponsored hazardous wuste landfill. 

Most of Maurice River Township is located in the Pinelands. It is home to some of the most 

outstanding natural resources in the State. It made no sense to locate a major waste facility in that 

community. Maurice River Township's Mayor, John Feltes, turned to the County for help. Thanks 

in great part to the leadership of then Freeholder Ed Salmon, the County began working hard to 

convince the Sitini Commission that the Township was not the place to site the State landfill. 

In May of 1987 the Cumberland County site was removed from the list of candidate locations 

for this facility. But, County leaders did not view this as the end of a process. Rather, the County's 

job had just begun. In speaking before the Siting Commission, County officials promised to take 

significant steps toward the permanent protection and conservation of this area. !twas from this effort 

that the "Maurice River and its Tributaries Wild and Scenic River Study" was born. 

I am here today to tell you that it has taken six years of tremendous dedication and hard work 

by many people to assemble the consensus to include these outstanding waterways in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system. I also want you to know it was worth the effort to reach a local 

agreement. Too often, State and Federal actions are taken which leave local officials responsible for 

picking up the pieces. Through the foresight of Congressman Bill Hughes. this did not happen with 

the Maurice River Study. Early on, Coniressman Hughes recognized that the Federal government 

should not designate an eligible river as part of the Scenic Rivers system without some sense of what 

this would mean for the citizens who live, work, and recreate in the region. That is why for the first 

time in the history of this program, the National Park Service worked with local government to put 

together a River Management Plan in advance of designation. It will be this Plan, this partnership, 

that guides the future of this important river system. 

I am proud of the role that County officials and local citizens played in making this Plan a 

reality. The County's Planning and Development Department, under the guidance of its director, 
87 

Steve Kehs, devoted considerable time to discussing and debating the critical issues in advance of 

Federal action. This effort has enabled us to come to you today having developed significant public 

awareness and acceptance for the wonhy goals of the Wild and Scenic River designation. 

There are too many other people who have played critical roles in the success of our effort 

to name each one. However, I would like to r~:cognize the leadership and dedication of Mayor John 

Feltes ofMaurice River Township who has been a steadfast supporter of this progriliil. It would have 

been easy for Mayor Feltes to tum away from Scenic River designation after the Hazardous Waste 

siting threat disappeared. Jack deserves a lot of credit for doing what was right instead of what might 

have been politically expedient. Next, I want to thank the leaders and members of Citizens United 

to Protect the Maurice River and its Tributaries. These individuals, some of whom are with me today, 

have devoted countless hours of volunteer time to this task. I am grateful both as their freeholder 

and their friend for the immeasureable impact they have had on our success. Finally, I would like 

to note that in addition to the tine effort of many County and local officials, it was our Congressman, 

Bill Hughes, who assembled the final pieces of this difficult task. Without his leadership and 

commitment, we would have settled for something less than the comprehensive package we bring 

before you today. 

Yet, after all this. nard work, our job is still not done. The process of protecting the :VIaurice 

River and itS tributaries will be an ongoing one. There will be challenges that will have to be met. 

There will be some growing pains as we experiment with the partnership betwc;en local and Federal 

interests that will manage these waterways. But I bring with me today my personal commitment and 

the commitment of the Board of Freeholders to this efffort. We want this to work. We want to help 

make the vision offered by Scenic River designation a reality. This not only means protecting the 

natural resources of the area, but also building a more prosperous future for our County's citizens. 

It means working with our agricultural, business, and civic leaders to address the many issues they 

have raised in the course of this study process in ways that protect our environment and promote the 

kinds of economic objectives they share. 

Cumberland County, New Jersey is a wonderful place to live. By protecting our important 

natural resources, we can assure coming generations that their quality oflife and their environment 

will be assets they can use to build a more prosperous future for their children. We look forward to 

working with Patty Weber and the other outstanding employees of the National Park Service to make 

the vision that is embodied in this rivers designation a reality. 

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to address you here today. 
88 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. 

I note that Congressman Hughes has returned. If he feels he 

would like to join me at the dais up here, it is a little lonely up 

here. Mr. HUGHES. No, that is fine, Bruce. 

Mr. VENTO. We will proceed with the other testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JANE MORTON GALETTO, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT THE MAURICE RIVER AND ITS 

TRIBUTARIES, INC. 

Mr. VENTO. We have Ms. Galetto. 

Ms. GALETTO. Yes, I would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to address the subcommittee today. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Hughes for hosting us 

and for all the work he has done in this effort. 

My name is Jane Morton Galetto, President of the Water Association called Citizens United to Protect Maurice River and its 

Tributaries, Inc. In addition, I serve on three State Department of 

Environmental Protection and Energy Councils, the Endangered 

and Non-Game Species Advisory Committee, I chair in the State of 

New Jersey, and I also sit on the Fish and Game Council and the 

Freshwater Wetlands Advisory Council. 

During this process, I was a member of the Wild and Scenic Task 

Force which developed the County Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan and, additionally, I served on Millville's Local River 

Management Committee. 

Both of these plans are cited in the bill, and one of the things 

that is crucial, and possibly some confusion, all of the municipals 

plans were developed in conjunction with the Park Service. 

So it wasn't a matter of the local plans being brought to the Park 

Service for conformity as much as it was a matter of a thorough 

consensus building throughout the process. Citizens United has 

about 380 memberships and our purpose is to preserve the Maurice 

River for future generations. 

Accompanying me today is our cofounder and trustee of Citizens 

United, Donald Fauerbach. 

I know you folks have a busy schedule today, so as I give the rest 

of my testimony, I will be cutting out some of those aspects that 

you have already heard and try to highlight some other aspects. 

As you probably already know, Citizens United has been working 

since 1986 with Bill Hughes on this initiative to designate these 

tributaries, the Maurice River and its tributaries, as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Actually, we are asking Congress to consider designating all the 

eligible segments of the river and we hope that in the future we 

can come back for the 7.2 miles that are omitted in this present 

legislation. 

H.R. 2650 represents many years of consensus building within 

the communities that border the eligible rivers, and the last time 

we testified, in September of this past year, only two of the eligible 

four rivers were included in the bill. Since that time, we have overcome a lot of hurdles to building consensus and are able to bring 

you all four rivers. 
89 

One of the most dramatic mandates during this period of building support came from the citizens of Millville who voted this past 

November overwhelmingly in support of a congressional wild and 

scenic designation. 

The aspects of condemnation, I believe were best addressed in 

Congressman Hughes' testimony. I will omit that from the testimony I give presently. 

Bill Hughes has also testified to the outstanding natural resources of the area. I think possibly earlier, when Mr. Hansen 

asked that the Red River be characterized, that possibly the thing 

I could say of greatest magnitude to try to give you an idea of what 

we are talking about in terms of the Maurice River would be the 

fact that the Chesapeake Estuary, the largest estuary on the East 

Coast, and the Delaware Bay is the second largest estuary bordering the Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast of our Nation. 

The largest supply of freshwater to the Delaware Estuary, other 

than the Delaware River itself, is the Maurice River. 

We are talking about an extremely important system to the viability of fisheries on the East Coast. We are talking about a river 

system that is, in fact, a very extensive and important system to 

what happens on the East Coast in terms of fisheries, and I hope 

that gives you some magnitude of the rivers that we are talking 

about. 

The wild and scenic study process, which, of course, started in 

1987 with President Reagan signing into legislation an authorizing 

bill, a study bill. Since that point in time, large industrial projects 

were proposed for lands adjacent to these rivers, projects which 

would destroy the rivers integrity as wild and scenic rivers for all 

time, if constructed. 

Congressional foresight since the passage of this study bill has 

protected these rivers: The pristine Manumuskin, the Menantico, 

the Muskee Creek and the great river, the Maurice. 

Today, whether or not the protection of these rivers continues 

rests in your hands. The urgency for congressional action remains 

as those who would destroy these national treasures and those who 

wish to preserve them await your decision, a decision which shapes 

our river's destiny. 

I would like to thank you once again for enabling us to address 

you today. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Galetto follows:] 
90 

Testimony of --- \!, 

Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River 

and its Tributaries, Inc. I 

Thursday, August 5,1993 , 

i 

! 

of the Congressional Sub Committee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands /i 

Comments In Support of: H. R. 2650 A bill to designate portions 

of the Maurice River and its tributaries, in the State of New 

Jersey, as components of the National Wild and Scenic River 

System 

Chairman; Congressman Bruce Vento I Committee Members 

My name is Jane Morton Galetto, I am President of a watershed 

association called Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and its 

Tributaries, Inc. (CU). In addition I serve on three state DEPE councils, the 

Endangered and Non Game Species Advisory Committee, Fish and Game 

Council and the Freshwater Wetlands Advisory Council. I was also a 

member of the Wild and Scenic River Task Force which developed the 

County Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Plan. Additionally, I served 

Millville's Local River Management Committee. Both of these plans are 

cited in the bill you are reviewing today. 

I am speaking on the behalf of Citizens United. Citizens United is a 

non profit watershed corporation with over 380 memberships. 

I i 

is to preserve and protect the Maurice River watershed for the enjoyme iWI!i!~'J 

this and future generations. Accompanying me today is co-touna(:r 

trustee of Citizens United Donald Fauerbach. 

As you may already be aware Citizens United bas been 

I 986 on an initiative to have the Maurice River and its tril>utaritwtres~l!\tf:W, 

into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. We are 

(continued) 

i 

.... ____ ) FOUN DED 1 ~2.9 __ 
91 

Congress to designate all eligible river segments (those cited in the bill before 

you today) into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As you know 

the National Park Service (NPS) found all the cited river segments to be 

overwhelmingly eligible for designation. H.R 2650 represents many years 

of consensus building within the communities which border the eligible river 

corridor. When we last testified before this sub-committee in September of 

this past year only two of the eligible four rivers were in the proposed bill. 

Since then many hurdles for building consensus have been overcome. One of 

the most dramatic mandates of support came from the citizens of Millville 

who voted this past November overwhelmingly in support of Congressional 

Wild and Scenic designation. 

During the September '92 hearing some concerns were raised about 

eliminating the ability of the National Park Service to acquire lands through 

condemnation. Without the elimination of this provision we would not be 

here today. Even the staunchest local proponents of Wild and Scenic agreed 

with this premise at the outset of the designation process. National Park 

Service Officials and Cumberland County Planners have made the 

development of this study project unique from the first days of the study 

process; designation was to come after the plan was developed instead of the 

status quo of- designation and then work out the details. The Park Service 

must now be sensitive to the process which they themselves have cooperated 

in, from the beginning the Park Service was part and parcel to the assurance 

of no land acquisition by means of condemnation. 

The entire Maurice River System is of tremendous local, regional, 

national, hemispheric and even global importance in a strictly environmental 

sense. It provides the largest contribution of clean, fresh water to the 

hemispberically important migratory bird habitats of the Delaware Estuary 

and is a vital link between Delaware Estuary habitat and the natural expanses 

of the Pineland& National Reserve. It supports one third of the entire 

population of globally endangered sensitive joint vetch. The watershed 

produces New Jersey's most extensive area of wild rice and provides essential 

habitat for Atlantic Ayway migratory waterfowl. This is the feeding, 

wintering and potential nesting grounds of the American bald eagle - more 

specifically it is the historic stronghold of this species. This area has the 

greatest concentration of threatened and endangered species in the State of 

New Jersey. 

(page 2 of3) 
92 

31 T-......y: CIU..D8 United 815193 

During the Wild and Scenic Study process (May 7,1987 President 

Reagan signed legislation authorizing the Maurice River study), large 

industrial projects were proposed for lands adjacent to these rivers. Projects 

which would destroy the Rivers' integrity as Wild and Scenic rivers for all 

time if constructed Congressional foresight, since the passage of the study 

bill has protected these rivers- the pristine Manumuskin, the Menantico, the 

Muskee Creek and the great river the Maurice. Today, whether or not the 

protection of these rivers continues rest in your hands. The urgency for 

Congressional action remains, as those who would destroy these national 

treasures and those who wish to preserve them await your decision. A 

decision which shapes our rivers' destiny. 

Thank you for enabling us to address you today. 

(page 3 of 3) 
93 

Some of the Organizations, and Groups 

Supporting Wild and Scenic Designation of the Maurice River 

and its Tributaries 

Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc. 

South Jersey Lands Trust 

Cumberland Conservation League 

New Jersey Conservation Foundation (5,000 members statewide) 

New Jersey Audubon Society (over 12,500 members) 

Association of New Jersey Envionmental Commissions 

American Rivers Washington D. C. 

New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs (over 150,000 members) 

New Jersey Environmental Federation (over 70,000 members) 

Menantico Conservation League 

W.A.T.E.R. 

4,000 Citizens signed petitions in area of proposed designation 

Delaware Esturary Program - Citizen Advisory Council 

The Nature Conservancy 

Watershed Association of the Delaware River 

American littoral Society 

Cape May Bird Observatory 

Pinelands Alliance 

Natural Lands Trust 

76-068 - 94 - 4 
94 

STATEMENT OF BETH NORCROSS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE 

PROGRAMS, AMERICAN RIVERS INC. 

Mr. VENTO. And let me invite Beth Norcross, with the American 

Rivers to present her statement on both the Maurice and its tributaries as well as the Red River at this time. 

Beth, welcome. 

Ms. NORCROSS. Thank you, Mr. Vento. This, I believe, is the first 

occasion that I have had to testify to this Congress, which is late 

in the session for us, but I think we owe that, to a large part, on 

the fact you wiped the slate clean, I think last Congress. 

Congress designated much, with your assistance and that of your 

staff, 30 new additions to the Wild and Scenic River System. It was 

a banner year for wild and scenic rivers and we certainly appreciate your help in that. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to testify on these two very important bills. I will tum first to H.R. 2650, the bill to designate the 

Maurice, the Manumuskin, the Manantico and the Muskie Creek 

Rivers in southern New Jersey. I will leave the superlatives to the 

local citizenry who know their river best. I will share an anecdote 

with you. 

I had occasion-in a previous incarnation, as you know, I worked 

with the Senate Parks Subcommittee, your counterpart in the Senate, and after finishing up the study bill back in 1987, we were 

given some pictures of these rivers, which our staff consistently 

framed and put up on the walls. 

As you know we had dealt, as do you, with some of the finest 

largest, wildest rivers across the Nation, and we were delighted as 

people came in the door and asked us what great Western State 

these rivers came from, to watch their mouths drop as we told 

them that they were indeed proud eastern New Jersey rivers. 

So, as you know, New Jersey has some very fine natural area 

and we were glad to enlighten the public as they came in our office. 

Not only does this bill offer significant protection to fine eastern 

streams, but it also offers a real model for wild and scenic designations on rivers surrounded primarily by private lands. As you 

know, these are our most difficult rivers because of landowner concerns and the like. 

Without sounding like a broken record, the National Park Service does deserve a great deal of credit in working with the local 

constituency, and also I would give Congressman Hughes a great 

deal of credit for working with his constituents, working with us, 

working with river advocates, and yourself, to come up with a bill 

that we could all support and that works for the folks there on the 

river and also works for the system as a whole. 

I just would like to mention a few areas briefly where this provides a model for private lands and rivers. First of all, as I said 

before, the Park Service worked together with the folks on the 

ground to come up with plans that made sense to them, and this 

is first and foremost, the principle whereby we have to follow in 

designating these private lands and rivers. 

The credo seems to be, and we agree with it wholeheartedly, that 

river protection efforts generally are not successful unless they are 

endorsed by the local citizenry. 
95 

Secondly, the Park Service did what we believe should be done 

on all wild and scenic rivers during the study process and prepared 

a draft management plan in advance. And what that did was to 

allow the landowners and the towns who are affected by this designation to see exactly what it was all about. 

It allayed a lot of the fears and it also prevented folks who are 

-opposed to designation from coming in and spreading mistruths 

and fear-mongering and giving people an idea that wild and scenic 

designation was something that it really was not. 

Thirdly, H.R. 2650 uses a very unique and creative way to limit 

condemnation along these stretches, while giving the Park Service 

the assurances that they can, indeed, protect the river if they need 

to, but also giving local landowners and municipals the assurance 

that their lands will almost certainly not ever be condemned. 

And fourthly, we really support the provision within the bill 

which allows for further cooperation and further efforts to protect 

those segments not designated by this particular bill. 

This, again, is a model, in our minds, for future private lands efforts and it builds on the model, as you mentioned earlier, of the 

Great Egg Harbor that we have done in previous Congresses. 

Turning next to H.R. 914, again, I think the superlatives around 

the Red River Gorge are well-known and I won't enunciate those 

any further. Kevin Coyle, our president, did ask me to pass along 

his greetings and also to ask you to take a hard look at this because he recently became engaged at the Red River Gorge. He also 

wanted me to note he did not find any Jemez salamanders there 

during his engagement, but I believe his mind was probably elsewhere. 

Mr. VENTO. Jemez salamander is a favorite topic of Mr. Richardson who is associated with Jemez River in New Mexico. So when 

Mr. Coyle testified on this matter, we brought this issue up to see 

if there was an in-depth understanding of the biological diversity 

of the amphibians in New Mexico. 

Ms. NORCROSS. We understand there is a Red River salamander, 

a distant eastern cousin to the Western Jemez salamander. It is, 

indeed, a spectacular gorge and we do support the designation of 

this area if amended in a couple of key ways. 

The Forest Service has enunciated the necessity of changing the 

boundary language, and we support the Forest Service on that for 

the reasons that they articulated. We also believe that the section 

that prohibits condemnation along this stretch should be deleted. 

I will have to say your conversation earlier articulated most of 

my concerns and thoughts on the matter, but I am sorry Mr. Hansen is not here because I wanted to point out one irony of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act is that it actually provides more assurance 

to folks who live along the river than they currently have. As you know, if you are in a proclamation boundary of a national 

forest you are subject to condemnation any day, any time. And as 

I said, the irony of it is that since this river is greater than 50 percent federally owned, that the, if designated, there would be no fee 

title condemnation as there is presently. 

The Forest Service and the BLM, as you know, have not used 

condemnation in several years, they have not used condemnation 

on a river that was designated since 1976, and it is not something 
96 

that they do lightly, and we do believe that tool should be maintained for emergency circumstances. 

I will submit the rest of my statement for the record and would 

be ~leased to answer any questions at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norcross follows:] 
97 

American ~rs 

TESTIMONY OF BETH NORCROSS 

DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS 

AMERICAN RIVERS, INC. 

ON H.R. 2650 

AND H.R. 914 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

August 5, 1993 

801 I'I!NN5YI.VANIA An., S.E. 

Su1T1!400 

w ..... JNGTON, DC 2ooo3 

(202) 547·6900 

(202) 543-6142 {FAX) 

,..:-· 

Jl. a member of Earth Share .. 
98 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify on two bills: H.R. 2650, a bill to 

designate the Maurice River and three tributaries, the Manumuakin 

and Menantico Rivera and Muskee Creek, in New Jersey as additions 

to the National Wild and scenic Rivers system; and H.R. 914, a 

bill to designate certain seqments of the Red River in Kentucky 

as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. My 

name is Beth Norcross, and I am the Director of Legislative 

Programs of American Rivers, a 15,000 member organization 

committed to the protection and restoration of the. nation's 

outstanding rivers. 

Turning first to H;R. 2650, I would first like to thank 

congressman Hughes for the leadership he has displayed in the 

designation of the Maurice, Manumuskin, and Menantioo Rivers and 

the Muskee Creek. Mr. Hughes has worked assiduously with local 

landowners, local river advocates, the Congress, and with 

American Rivers to negotiate a bill we can all wholeheartedly 

endorse. 

In 1987, congress passed an Act requiring the Secretary of 

the Interior to study the Maurice River and its tributaries for 

possible wild and scenic designation. The final wild and scenic 

-- 1 --
study report, completed this year, found the Maurice and its 

tributaries, the Manumuskin River, the Menantico River, and the 

Muskee creek, all eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic 

System. Because local communities were at that time divided over 

the designation of the Menantico and the main stem of the 

Maurice, only the Muskee Creek and the Manumuskin River were 

found suitable for designation and therefore recommended for 

inclusion in the System. Since that time, however, virtually all 

of the communities have endorsed designation. Consequently, all 

but the 7-mile -·Lower Maurice stretch are now included in the 

bill. 

Despite its proximity to the Greater Philadelphia and Camden 

metropolis, the Maurice River system has maintained the integrity 

of the natural biological features that once were indigenous to 

its densely populated neighboring regions. These prevailing 

ecological, historical and cultural resources surrounding the 

Maurice and its tributaries are only surpassed by this area's 

undisturbed, pristine beauty. 

The river banks and wetlands along the Maurice, as well as 

providing habitat for various types of migrating shorebirds and 

threatened reptiles and amphibians, boast the last remaining 

suitable bald eagle wintering and nesting ground in the State. 

Thirty-one endangered plant species live in the Maurice corridor, 

which is also home to the striped bass, an important sport and 

-- 2 
100 

commercial fish whose population has been threatened along much 

of the East coast. The high-quality water the Maurice delivers 

to the Delaware Bay is critical to the regional seafood 

industries and is directly related to the level of the Cohansey 

aquifer, the region's source of groundwater. Fralinger Farm, a 

prehistoric American Indian settlement that has been occupied for 

over 3,000 years, is just one of the immensely valuable cultural 

resources along the Maurice. 

This bill not only offers important protection to 

significant eastern streams, but also offers a model for wild and 

scenic designation on rivers surrounded primarily by private 

lands. The National Park Service deserves a great deal of credit 

for preparing the wild and scenic study in a manner that was both 

respectful of the resources of the rivers and of those people who 

live and work along the river. Accordingly, the Park Service 

forged partnerships with local individuals and government 

entities based on mutual respect which resulted in a sound river 

protection effort. The Park Service worked on the basis of the 

maxim that we wholeheartedly endorse -- river protection efforts 

generally are not successful unless they are endorsed by the 

local citizenry. 

The basis of the Park Service cooperative effort was the 

development of a draft management plan for the Maurice and its 

tributaries prior to designation . It is our belief that Congress 

-- 3 
101 

should require that all wild and scenic studies include the 

preparation of a draft management plan. Draft management plan 

preparation prior to designation gives individuals and government 

entities the opportunity to see just how designation will affect 

them before the fact. It allows the Park Service to work out 

problem areas before people believe that designation is being 

imposed upon them againet their will. And finally, early plan 

preparation discourages individuals who oppose designation from 

playing on landowner fears and spreading falsehoods about what 

designation is all about. 

H.R. 2650 also uses the existing provisions of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act to limit condemnation in a manner that is 

meaningful to landowners along these particular rivers. Building 

on the example of the Great Egg wild and scenic river which was 

designated last year, the bill utilizes section 6(c) of the Act 

which prohibits condemnation if adequate local zoning is in 

place. H.R. 2650 expands the definition of "local zoning" to 

include locally-developed river plans which are actually more 

comprehensive in scope than most zoning ordinances. The bill 

does an excellent job of using the basic tenets of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act and stretching them to be more responsive to 

concerns of local landowners. 

We are also very supportive of section 3(d) of the bill, 

which encourages the Park Service to work with local 

-- 4 
102 

municipalities to secure support for designation of additional 

segments of these rivers. 

Turning next to H.R. 914, American Rivers would like to 

commend Congressman Rogers for introducing the Red River 

Designation Act of 1993. This bill would protect 19.4 miles of 

the Red River, as it flows through the Red River Gorge and 

eastern Kentucky's Daniel Boone National Forest, by inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Often noted for its impressive array of wild fiowers, the 

scenic and biologically diverse Red River Gorge is home to rare 

wildlife populations and warm water fishery habitat. The area 

also exhibits towering rock formations and natural bridges, 

features significant Native American cultural sites, and provides 

renowned canoeing, hiking, and camping opportunities. 

Lingering controversy involving a proposed Corps of 

Engineers flood control dam, however, continues to threaten these 

outstanding attributes. Many local residents have expressed 

strong opposition to any darn because such a proposal would 

endanger the very traits that characterize the river and its 

adjacent rural agricultural communities. These qualities were 

cited by the Forest Service in 1984 when the Red River was found 

eligible for wild and scenic river designation. Last January, 

then-President George Bush moved to protect the gorge when he 

-- 5 --
103 

recommended that Congress add 19.4 miles of the river to the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Kentucky 

Environmental Quality Commission has also passed a resolution 

asking the Kentucky delegation to pursue a wild and scenic river 

designation. Without a doubt, designation enjoys widespread 

support; it would spare this unique resource from unwarranted dam 

development and insure that nearby rural communities and frequent 

visitors will be able to benefit from the natural, cultural, and 

recreational values of the river in perpetuity. 

While American Rivers supports wild and scenic designation 

of this stretch, we recommend some amendments to the bill that we 

believe would strengthen its protections without compromising 

private landowner interests. 

First, we are concerned that H.R. 914 limits the ability of 

the Forest Service to define appropriate corridor boundaries by 

specifying those boundaries within the bill. Section 3(b) of the 

Act requires the agency to define boundaries of the corridor 

after designation through the management planning process. While 

American Rivers recognizes that local citizens feel the need to 

know exactly how wild and scenic river designation will affect 

land use, such premature boundary delineation "politicizes" 

boundary designation procedures. Therefore, American Rivers 

recommends that all boundary delineation language be stricken 

from H.R. 914. 

-- 6 --
1~ 

Secondly, we would also strongly recommend that the 

provision that limits the Secretary's ability to acquire lands be 

deleted from this bill. The portion of the Red River to be 

designated is greater than sot federally owned and would 

therefore not be subject to condemnation in fee title pursuant to 

the restrictions in section 6(b) of the Act. The only threat, 

therefore, for condemnation would be to acquire easements. No 

landowner would ever need fear his or her land being taken 

outright. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act goes to great lengths to 

restrict the government's ability to purchase land adjacent to 

designated rivers and to not adversely affect existing land uses. 

These limitations on condemnation serve to improve local control 

over land use, while at the same time fulfilling long standing 

local efforts to conserve a resource, attract tourism, and raise 

land values. 

The condemnation authority contained in the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act has rarely been used by the federal land managing 

.agencies in the 25-year history of the Act. In fact, there has 

been no condemnation by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management in the last 13 years. The agencies have appropriately 

shown a great reluctance to use their condemnation authority, 

preferring instead to respond to landowner uses which are 

-- 7 --
105 

incompatible with the designation by negotiation or acquisition 

of easement on a willing seller basis. Only in the most extreme 

of circumstances, when landowner use would significantly degrade 

the values of the river meant to be protected by the Act, do the 

agencies condemn. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the 

Subcommittee today and would be glad to answer any questions. 

-- 8 --
106 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, thank you very much, Beth. I think that 

is a good point on the Red River. 

As with wilderness designation, that completely suspends the 

condemnation authority. Of course, it has a significant impact in 

terms of land use beyond that, but insofar as there are concerns 

about it, the designation of the wild and scenic, again, qualifies it 

significantly. 

I think it can be worked out. It is probably a good thought to 

copy the subcommittee Chairman's legislative language from his 

own district, but there may be some better that fits within the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act. So we will try to work through, but, in any 

case, I don't think it will be too much of a stumbling block. 

It is essential the tools be present to accomplish the goals of 

what the legislation seeks to achieve, and that really is the purpose. If we have to do something slightly different in some instances, we hope that the bottom line is that the Forest Service or 

the Park Service has the ability to manage and to attain what we 

are asking them to do. It is just about that simple. 

There may be some modifications or differences, as in the context 

of the wild and scenic, to do that in New Jersey or in Kentucky, 

as the case may be with the Red River. 

I did go through most of the questions. I note that the fish presence, there is a question about the presence of certain fish in these 

eastern rivers. They talk about the-since you had brought up the 

issue of the Jemez salamander, it is only fair we talk about this. 

They do talk about the presence of a scarlet snake, and I was 

looking for amphibians, but I didn't see any. 

Ms. NORCROSS. There is a tiger salamander along the Maurice. 

Mr. VENTO. Quite large, actually. Also, call them hellbenders and 

they are pretty big. But I don't know if it actually occurs here. I 

didn't look. 

This said at least five amphibian species considered threatened 

in the State, and I don't know, but I expect they would occur in 

this watershed. 

Ms. GALE'ITO. They do occur in the watershed. You have pine 

snake, pine bears, tree frog. The northern tiger salamander, which 

you alluded to as being a large salamander, is actually North 

America's largest salamander, and in New Jersey it is a threatened 

endangered species. 

As to the other two species, the scarlet snake has an undetermined status in the State of New Jersey, and we just recently 

found a com snake on a site within the corridor, and that is also 

one of our State's threatened and endangered species. The Federal 

species involved are the bald eagle, the shortnose sturgeon and the 

peregrine falcon. 

Mr. VENTO. Those species that have historically inhabited the 

Maurice River are considered endangered, but the present status of 

the fish within the study area is unknown. 

Ms. GALE'ITO. That is correct. There has not been a shortnose 

sturgeon caught and documented for a number of years. There was 

one fish that was caught and thought to be a shortnose sturgeon, 

but a person with the proper expertise to make the identification 

was not present and the fish was returned. 
107 

Mr. VENTO. I am glad for the catch-and-release philosophy. Are 

there other types of sturgeon in the river besides the shortnose? 

Ms. GALETTO. The Atlantic sturgeon. 

Mr. VENTO. So there are other fish here. Are these rivers subject 

to runs of shad, as an example? 

Ms. GALETTO. Not really. The shad run goes predominantly up 

the Delaware river, but the alewife or black bakarinose are the run 

of fish most well-known to take place in the river. We also have 

striped bass. 

Mr. VENTO. I saw they were referred to. They run the river, 

then? 

Ms. GALETTO. Which was a declining species that is presently on 

the increase. We also have another declining species that we have 

a stronghold for on the river and that is black duck. That is a species of concern with the Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife System. 

Mr. VENTO. It is called black--

Ms. GALETTO. The black duck. 

Mr. VENTO. Duck. 

Ms. GALETTO. Duck, yes. So that is a species of Federal concern 

we happen to be the stronghold for. 

In the Maurice River we probably have the largest numbers of 

black duck anywhere in the Atlantic flyway, which hold up there 

in the winter, as well as we have a breeding population in the summer. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't go through all the different resources, but it 

has-in other words, the point is even though it is in the East, 

there are a significant number of fauna and flora that are in this 

particular corridor. 

Ms. GALETTO. Is Congressman Hughes still here? 

Well, Congressman Hughes has to bring you down. We will take 

you on tour and you can see for yourself. 

Mr. VENTO. I am certain of this. I would be happy to do so. I am 

just trying to get it in the hearing record and, obviously, it does 

not do justice to the 32 miles of it. 

Ms. GALETTO. The area, as far as threatened and endangered 

species, the statement that we could use that would be the best explanation of what is present, you have the three federally endangered species, beyond that the Maurice River watershed has the 

largest concentration of State-threatened endangered species in 

New Jersey. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I would talk about the bald eagle, but they are 

big enough to take care of themselves, plus they get a lot of attention, so somebody has to look out for the amphibians and the other 

benthic organisms that are important in this total biodiversity 

scheme. To me, one piece of DNA is as good as another. 

Ms. GALETTO. Some tiger salamanders ears are ringing in the 

Maurice River now. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, anyway, I could go through a lot of other questions. I do appreciate your presence this morning. 

I recall the enthusiasm last fall in terms of the Egg Harbor River 

and the work on the study. Actually, I have been here for a while 

and I can remember the studies. They start coming back to me. 

So, in any case, it is really a joy in a sense to see the type of 

collaboration and cooperation that has been achieved here, I know 
108 

with no small effort on the part of the various groups that are represented. 

I know that Congressman Hughes deserves a lot of credit as well 

as others that have worked on it at the local level. I am certain 

that we are on a path here where we want to positively consider 

it and we will hand it over to Senator Bradley and others to carry 

this through in the Senate and, hopefully, be at the President's 

desk and he will designate another 7 miles to be studied and the 

issues resolved that are affected. 

But, otherwise, I have really no further questions and I want to 

be sure we get the other witnesses to talk about the Colonial issue, 

which I am certain there are answers to explain after our exchange 

with the regional director. 

Thank you all very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Finally, we have to testify Mr. Norman Beatty, Vice 

President, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and Mr. David Norman, County Administrator, James City County. 

Your statements will be placed in the committee record in their 

entirety, and you can feel free to summarize, read the relevant portions thereof or add additional comments as you feel it is appropriate. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN G. BEATTY, VICE PRESIDENT, 

COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION 

Mr. BEATTY. Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the hour, I 

will talk ad hoc and let my statement speak for itself, especially 

since Mr. Bateman saw fit to plagiarize my statement in his own, 

which is perfectly fine with us. 

Mr. VENTO. We have no copyright laws with regards to public officials, you know. 

Mr. BEATTY. We are immune here, aren't we? 

I think one of the things I would like to stress is this is truly 

a remarkably community-wide consensus. This is a critical issue 

that runs from the business community to the environmental community and sister h~:Jtoric organizations like our own, because the 

Colonial Parkway is truly the ribbon that holds the direct triangle 

together, Yorktown, Jamestown and Williamsburg, and it is impossible for us to conceive we can do our jobs presenting this unique 

chapter of American history without the Colonial Parkway and 

what it does to hold us together and to tell the story of how America began, that remarkable story, in just 23 miles, that spans from 

1607 to 1781. 

This is a regrettable situation that did occur. I, too, had questions in the very beginning, as you did, Mr. Chairman, of whether 

there were other examples of this and we are satisfied that there 

are not. This is a unique situation, and I am also encouraged that 

the landowner who has gone out of his way, really, the developer, 

to make this land available to the National Park Service, and we 

are confident that if Congress acts that we do have a means to 

make that happen even before appropriations. 

So I appreciate your hearing us and giving us this opportunity 

and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much, Mr. Beatty. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Beatty follows:] 
109 

Telephoneo 804-229-1000 

'POST O'FF\CJ;: BOX C 

WlLLIJ!>MSSUR<lj-, VIRc;;-lNI;>. 23187 

TESTIMONY BY NORMAN G. BEATTY. VICE PRESIDENT. COLONIAL 

WILLIAHSBVRG FQUNQATION. BEFQRE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBQQMMIT'l'EE ON NATIQNAL PARKS· fORESTS AND PQBLIC LANDS 

REGARDING H.R. 2478. AUGVST 5. 1993 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Norman G. Beatty. I represent the 

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in Williamsburg, Virginia, where 

I am vice president for communications and government relations. 

I am here on an errand of some urgency; I am here to speak on behalf of H.R. 2478 as introduced by Representative Herb Bateman 

of Virginia's First Congressional District. 

Passage of this bill would buttress against an unforeseen 

and immediate threat the protection and tranquility congress has 

already guaranteed to the sites and scenes of some of the most 

primary, dramatic, and inspiring passages of our nation's 

history. It would secure a vital and unspoiled stretch of the 

Colonial Parkway from the imminent intrusion of inharmonious 

development. 

Colonial Williamsburg is a non-profit educational 

institution visited by nearly one million Americans a year. It is one of the three points within the Historic Triangle that the 

Colonial Parkway -- an integral part of the Colonial National 

Historical Park -- inscribes across the Virginia peninsula that 

divides the James and York rivers as they flow to the Chesapeake Bay. 

One of America's most beautiful and leisurely byways, the 

limited-acess parkway is a product of the foresight with which 

Interior Secretary Harold Ickes blessed posterity in 1938, and of 

the stewardship of the National Park Service since. It links 

Jamestown Island, the site of the first permanent English 

settlement in America; Colonial Williamsburg, the restored 18thcentury Virginia capital of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, 

and Yorktown, where George Washington humiliated Lord Cornwallis 

in the final critical battle for American independence. 

1 
110 

A rolling, parkland ribbon of river vistas, tree-shaded 

rambles, wetlands wildlife, and serenity, the Colonial Parkway beqins wbere Bnqlishaen broke ground for their First Colony, 

visits the town where Virginia patriots sowed the seeds of 

liberty, and concludes on the battlefields where the father of our country reaped our freedom. It links cherished shrines of 

America's colonial traditions, and protects them from the trying 

encroachments of progress. All along ita gracious, peaceful length, the right of way of this rural lane fashions a buffer 

between our bustling todays and our historic yesterdays. 

The parkway is a popular scenic route that quards the 

quality of an historic environment in a managed landscape that screena modern development. Its character is important for 

citizens, businesses, civic and conservations organizations, and 

local governments. 

As iaportant to its purpose as any reach of the Colonial 

Parkway, the ambience of the segment that quards the north shores 

of John Smith'a Jamestown Island is suddenly in danqer. Slipping 

past the -.arshes, grasslands and pines toward a broad bend in the 

James, this length of the parkway atarts the vacationer, the 

families on holiday, the student field trips, the inspiration seekers, on their personal journeys back in time. As they look 

down this vista on history the eyes of these travelers soon will 

fall upon a housing development just off to the side -- unless 

Congress acts quickly and favorably on H.R. 2478. 

The woods on the north margin of this portion of the parkway 

have been subdivided. Moat of the subdivision is too far removed 

froa the road to offer any insult to the scenery. Building and 

clearing in this area -- entirely unobjectionable -- has already bequn. Colonial Williamsburg carries no brief aqainat 

developaent, but it hopes to help the National Park Service avoid 

construction and tree cutting on a sensitive strinq of lots that 

almost abuts the road. 

The developer is as anxious as any American to safequard the 

ambience of such an important pathway to the past, but he is 

under irresistible financial pressure in the present to wind up 

his project. The lending institutions are anxious over their 

investments in the propertiea, and the developer must accommodate 

contractors at the point of committing to homebuyera. He has 

preasinq obligations that he must meet. 

Fortunately, he is quite cooperative and mora than willing 

to convey these lots to the National Park system. Luckily, the 

Conaervation Fund has agreed to purchase his interest in them 

pending federal reiabura .. ent, reimbursement H.R. 2478 would assure. 

2 
111 

Protection of the parkway is an issue of qreat community concern and pride, and a matter, truly, of national importance. 

It is an issue of protecting the surroundings of American 

shrines. Colonial Williamsburq is foursquare for this measure. As 

you know from your correspondence, the bill has as well the 

support of the City of Williamsburg, the James City County Board 

of Supervisors, the Williamsburg Area Chamber of Commerce, the 

Lower James River Association, and the overwhelming majority of 

the citizens of the Williamsburg area. 

Colonial Williamsburg joins these organizations and citizens 

in asking Congress to confirm the wisdom it has long shown in 

investing in the nation's future by investing the protection of 

its past. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention and for your time. 

3 
112 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. NORMAN, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

JAMES CITY COUNTY, VA 

Mr. VENTO. And, finally, Mr. Nonnan, your statement from the 

county. 

Mr. NoRMAN. Yes, sir, I will be brief. 

I am here on behalf of the board of supervisors, our elected 

boards of supervisors. Our County, James City is very richly 

blessed to have a sizable portion of the Colonial Parkway passing 

through our community from Jamestown to Williamsburg, but 

today we come to you with concerns. 

One section of the parkway does not have sufficient right-of-way 

to adequately buffer it from encroaching development. This section 

is being developed with residential lots which will back up to within 85 feet of the parkway pavement. A visual blight will be created 

which cannot be adequately buffered with planting. The county is not in a legal position to restrict residential development on these lands. We have no differences with the developer 

and his desire to develop his land, however, there is a need to acquire lots as a buffer before they are sold for building purposes. 

I want to assure you the county does not object to this land being 

taken off our tax role because of the importance an unspoiled parkway is to the citizens of this country as well as to foreign travelers. Colonial Parkway is a national treasure which must be preserved 

in its pre1;ent state of natural beauty. This treasure is a source of 

pride to all citizens as they enjoy this appealing environment. To 

fail to maintain the integrity of this treasure, would, I believe, reflect upon our Nation in its responsibility to continue the preservation of a major investment in this valuable asset, America's Colonial Parkway. With the support of our community, we urge the support of Congress in acquiring this land. 

Mr. Chainnan, I thank you for this opportunity to be here. Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Nonnan follows:] 
113 

ftSt~t OP Da.VID B. mRIWI, COUII'l"f ....UO:SDM.'OR OP J.UIBS Cn't' 

COUII'l"f, VIRGIIIIA, BBI'OltB '1'JIB BDUSB OF IIBPRBSBift'AtiVBS' stJB-Cmllllr.rBB 

C. ~Io.&L PABS, P<XUlS'rS AIID PUBLIC LAIIDS RBG&RDDIG B.R. 2ol78, 

.uJGUSI' 5, 1993. 

llr. ChaiDIAn, my name ia David B. Horman. I serve James City 

County, Virqinia, aa ita County Administrator. I em here today on 

behalf of our elected Board of Supervisors to apeak in support of 

B.R. 2478 aa introduced by Representative Herbert Bateman. 

Our County ia richly blessed in havinq a sizeable portion of the 

Colonial Parkway pass throuqh our com.unity - from Ja.eatown to 

WillilliiUiburq. But today we come to you with concerns. One section 

of the Parkway does not have sufficient riqht-of-way to adequately 

buffer it from ancroachinq development. This section is beinq 

developed with residential lots which will back up to within 85 

f-t of the Parkway pavement. A visual bliqht will be created 

which can not be adequately buffered with plantinqs. 

The County is not in a leqal position to restrict residential 

devalos-ent on these lands. we have no differences with the 

developer and hJ.s desire to develop hia land. However, there ia a 

need to acquire lots aa a buffer before they are sold for buildinq 

purposes. 

I want to assure you that the County does not object to thJ.a land 

beinq taken off the tu: roles, because of the illlportanca of an 
114 

unspoiled Parkway to the citizens of this country as well' as to 

foreign travelers. 

The Colonial Parkway is a national treasure which must be preserved 

in its present state of natural .beauty. This treasure is a source 

of pride to all citizens as they enjoy this appealing environment. 

To fail to maintain the integrity of this treasure would, I 

believe, reflect upon our nation in its responsibility to continue 

the preservation of a major investment in this valuable asset -

America's Colonial Parkway. 

With the support of our community we urge the support of Congress 

in acquiring land as provided for in H.R. 2478 • 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank each of you for your time and 

attention and especially for your commitment to serving this great 

and beautiful country of ours. 
115 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Nonnan. I note that you said the county is not in a legal position to restrict residential development on these lands today. 

Mr. NORMAN. Today. Under existing law. 

Mr. VENTO. Within the county, who has the zoning authority in 

this area? 

Mr. NORMAN. We have the zoning authority. 

Mr. VENTO. So was the zoning changed or has this been this way 

since the late 1930s? 

Mr. NORMAN. It has been this way. 

Mr. VENTO. So you knew the potential problem· at least was 

there, and I don't know if it is ever easy to predict a developer's 

actions, but, clearly, are there other instances, in light of this particular example? Have you had an opportunity in the county to review-! don't know if you have the entire length of the parkway 

in your county. 

Mr. NoRMAN. Just the section from Jamestown to Williamsburg. 

Mr. VENTO. That is a pretty significant portion. Have you reviewed the zoning around this area? If we go in, or somebody does, 

and buys this for $750,000 and we take care of this, but at the 

same time, the county has other outstanding land classifications 

that could be in conflict, there are a lot of things you can do in 

tenns of requiring setbacks. I am not suggesting that you-well, 

are there other actions that you would consider? 

Mr. NoRMAN. There are no other legal actions that we can apply 

in this particular case or in the future instances. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, have you, in fact, developed a zonjng policy 

that prevents transboundary or cross-park boundary problems into 

private lands? 

Mr. NORMAN. That is not possible under Virginia law, that I am 

aware of. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know, maybe I am not making myself clear. 

Obviously, it is hard to rezone something. You can 8lways upgrade 

it, I suppose, if that is what you want to call it, from residential 

to commercial. I don't know what all the zoning laws are in Vir- ginia. 

What I am asking is that there be a cooperative effort here not 

to-and I am trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are 

Jamestown, Yorktown and the parkway in this area. Mr. NoRMAN. I can assure you Jamestown County has been, historically, very protective in its land use policies that relates to both 

Colonial Williamsburg properties as well as the parkway properties. 

Mr. VENTO. This is not a case where in 1991 they decided to zone 

this all residential and subdivide it. 

Mr. NORMAN. No, this had been zoned this way for some time. 

Mr. VENTO. If that property had come before the county board at 

that time, there would have been a debate about the impact on the 

parkway, I take it? 

Mr. NoRMAN. The only thing we were able to do was require a 

25-foot buffer. Not require. In Virginia property owners are able to 

proffer certain things, and we cannot require the proffers, but the 

developer did proffer a 25-foot buffer. But that is not adequate. 
116 

Mr. VENTO. That is not sufficient unless you plant Lombardy 

poplars which have a life expectancy of 10 years, then they die. So 

it is not a very good idea, I guess. 

Mr. NORMAN. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I understand and I appreciate, obviously, the 

county's willingness, and even though I was obviously concerned 

about the sewer system, I understand there is a debate in the county over that. I am not trying to be insensitive to it. But, on the 

other hand, I am looking at what the impact is on the Park Service 

in terms of what our policies are. I don't know this is a problem 

that is going to occur again real soon. 

Mr. Beatty, are there any other sources of revenue to help deal 

with this nearly three-quarter of a million dollar problem here? 

Mr. BEATTY. Well, we have contacted the Conservation Fund for 

interim help. That might be the immediate solution, because the 

developer really is under-in fact, he is overdue with his financing 

institutions on this parcel, and our hope is we might be able to affect an arrangement with the Conservation Fund to actually acquire the land and then it would be subsequently acquired by the 

Federal Government. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there any other sources? 

Mr. BEATTY. We have not been able to identify any other legitimate sources. 

Mr. VENTO. Williamsburg itself, the Foundation, has not considered any type of assistance here? 

Mr. BEATTY. I think we are well beyond our resources and our 

ability to do that. We are very sympathetic, obviously, and supportive, but we are unable to financially support it that way. 

Mr. VENTO. I notice the Superintendent is still here. 

Superintendent Gould, could you rejoin us at the table for a 

minute, because I had a question I wanted to ask on the length of 

the, if you know, the length of the easements for the sewer line 

that is in this bill. 

Do you know what the length of the area is of that easement that 

you are granting? Is it parallel with the road; does it run the entire 

length of it or what are we talking about? 

Mr. GoULD. There is not a real simple answer to that. There are 

basically two types of easements, one is what the county and the 

trustees gave to us back in 1956, that is an easement not on park 

lands. That is an easement in and beside the streets in Yorktown 

and the-so we will just give back to the County of York and the 

trustees of Yorktown what they gave to us and that does not involve park lands. 

Then the second is the easement on park lands, and they are basically in four places, one out in the Moore House Subdivision and 

then three in and around Yorktown. 

Mr. VENTO. So they are pretty substantial easements; substantial 

lengths, or not? 

Mr. GoULD. Well, at the Moore House it would be a couple hundred feet and the Yorktown area more than that. 

Mr. VENTO. We might want to look at some specifics. It is not 

that I don't think we are making you tread water here or do a lot 

of work. It probably is necessary anyway in terms of whatever the 
117 

disposition of the issue is to have that infonnation available, I 

would think. 

Mr. GoULD. Yes, I would be happy to. I have some maps here 

now, if you want to see them, or I can supply them for the record. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't want to take the time of the committee and 

the other witnesses at this point, but I think if you get together 

with staff at a convenient time, or if you leave them and then be 

responsive to questions from staff and/or myself, we can make an 

evaluation of that infonnation. 

Mr. GoULD. Yes, be happy to do that. Mr. VENTO. I think the impression that one might be left with 

is that this easement could run the entire length of the parkway. 

Mr. GoULD. Oh, no. Mr. VENTO. It does not? 

Mr. GoULD. No. 

Mr. VENTO. These are much smaller easements. 

Mr. GouLD. Much smaller just in and around York. 

Mr. VENTO. The easements that would remain on the park property would principally serve the Park Service; service the facilities; 

is that correct? 

Mr. GouLD. It is a mix. 

Mr. VENTO. A mixture, yes. That is the concern I have. That is 

the concern I have. And how they would be used in the future 

would be, of course, as I said to Regional Director Reynolds, would 

be a concern of mine. So you will want to nail that down, I guess. 

Well, superintendent thank you very much. 

Mr. Beatty, I really don't have any further questions. I appreciate your coming up. 

It underlines, obviously, the importance, and, Mr. Nonnan, of the 

community support and interest in the matter. 

It is a substantial undertaking for the Park Service in a single 

park, especially for this small a parcel, but you are convinced it is 

key to the entire experience of that Colonial drive; is that correct? 

Mr. BEATTY. That is correct. 

Mr. NORMAN. Very much so. 

Mr. VENTO. I saw the map, and this is located on one end of the 

drive. I have been there. Of course, most of us that have been in 

Washington a little while have visited these sites. Very impressive 

area. Very important to the economy, and so thanks very much for 

your testimony. 

We will stand adjourned at this time. 

Thank you, Superintendent Gould. 

Mr. GoULD. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H.R. 1471/S. 375, TO AMEND THE WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS ACT BY DESIGNATING A 

SEGMENT OF THE RIO GRANDE IN NEW 

MEXICO AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

.H.R. 2815, TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE 

FARMINGTON RIVER IN CONNECTICUT AS A ·.,COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 

THURSDAY. OCTOBER 28. 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will be in order. 

This morning we are meeting to hear two measures, as members 

have been advised. There is a series of three bills, actually, and two 

subjects. To designate different portions of rivers for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

One river, the Rio Grande in New Mexico's designation is the 

purpose of two of the measures, a Senate and House measure. The 

House measure introduced by our friend and colleague Bill Richardson, who serves on the subcommittee, and who, obviously, this 

morning has conflicts on some of the other bills that are being considered. But he assured me of his interest and support for this matter, so we will be working closely with him. 

This is a 12-mile segment of the Rio Grande. Apparently in an 

earlier action nearly 50 miles of the river has been designated 

under the Act. 

The other measure is H.R. 2815, introduced by our friend and 

colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Nancy Johnson, and 

cosponsored by all the members of the Connecticut delegation, in-

(119) 
120 

eluding, of course, Congressman Gejdenson, who works with us on 

the Committee on Natural Resources. 

This measure would designate about 14 miles of the Farmington 

River, for management as a recreation river under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. I will note especially that the bill deviates in 

several respects from the usual provisions of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, and we will be taking note of that during the hearing 

and the discussions with the Park Service. We need to look very 

closely at these matters in our consideration of legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BRUCE F. VENTO 

Today we will have a hearing on two bills, H.R. 1104, a bill to establish the Great 

Falls Historic District Commission in New Jersey, which was introduced by Representative Herb Klein, and H.R. 2843, a bill to establish the Wheeling National 

Heritage Area, introduced by Congressman Mollohan. Both of these bills consider 

ways to preserve and interpret our Nation's history and deal with aspects of our industrialized past. 

H.R. 2843 is identical to a measure currently pending before the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee, S. 1341, introduced by Senator Byrd. For the 

past several years various activities have been underway in Wheeling, WV, involving National Park Service personnel and using NPS funds for historic and cultural 

preservation purposes. These activities have taken place without an express legislative policy directing the use of those Federal personnel and funds. Concerns have 

been expressed as to the role of the National Government in this project as well as the extent of the duties and responsibilities of the involved parties. The legislation we are considering today (H.R. 2843) would formalize the various duties and responsibilities for the historic and cultural preservation activities proposed to be undertaken in this area. There needs to be a legislative authorization for the Wheeling 

project. The fiscal year 1994 Interior Appropriations Act also recognizes that need 

by placing a restriction on the use of funds in this area. The second bill we are considering today, H.R. 1104, establishes the Great Falls 

Historical District Commission for the preservation and redevelopment of the Great 

Falls National Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey. I understand that Rep- resentative Klein has been working with Representatives from the National Park 

Service, as well as interested local official and citizens, to refine some of the provisions of this legislation. While a bill incorporating some of the suggested changes was introduced last Wednesday, we lacked the time to notice that legislation, H.R. 

3498, for this hearing. However, I understand that the Park Service and minority 

have copies of the bill introduced last week, and the administration witness is prepared to answer questions on its provisions. 

While this subcommittee has authorized various heritage corridors, we have only 

begun to consider the heritage areas concept as another approach to resource preservation and interpretation. I believe that the concept of heritage areas is one that we need to examine carefully so that we can determine what appropriate action can or should be taken on these and other proposed heritage areas. Accordingly, I look 

forward to learning more about these proposed heritage areas and the concept behind heritage areas as well. 

[Texts of the bills, H.R. 1471, S. 375, and H.R. 2815, follow:] 
121 

I 

103DCONGRESS 1ST SESSION H R 1471 

• • 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivera Act by designating a segment of 

the Rio Grande iii New Mexico aa a component of the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 1993 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wlld and Scenic Rivers Act by designating 

a segment of the Rio Grande in New Mexico as a component of 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 "Rio Grande Designa5 tion Act of 1993". 
122 

2 

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SCENIC RIVER. 

2 Section 3(a) of the Wlld and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new paragraph: 

5 "( ) RIO GRANDE, NEW MExlco.-The main stem 

6 from the southern boundary of the segment of the Rio 

7 Grande designated pursuant to paragraph (4), downS stream approximately 12 miles to the west section line of 

9 Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 10 East, to be ad1 0 ministered by the Secretary of the Interior as a scenic 

11 river.". 

12 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF STUDY RIVER. 

13 (A) STUDY.-Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic 

14 Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at 

15 the end the following new paragraph: 

16 "( ) RIO GRANDE, NEW MEXICO.-The segment 

17 from the west section line of Section 15, Township 23 

18 North, Range 10 East, downstream approximately 8 miles 

19 to the southern line of the northwest quarter of Section 

20 34, Township 23 North, Range 9 East.". 

21 (b) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.-Section 5(b) of such 

22 Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

23 the following new paragraph: 

24 "( ) The study of the Rio Grande in New Mexico 

25 shall be completed and the report submitted not later than 

26 3 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph.". 

•DR 1471 m 
123 

3 

1 SEC. 4. RIO GRANDE CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Not later than 90 days after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

4 Interior (referred to in this Act as the "Secretary") shall 

5 establish the Rio Grande Citizens Oversight Review Board 

6 (referred to in this Act as the "Board") to advise the Sec7 retary on matters pertaining to--

8 (1) the development and implementation of a 

9 management plan for the segment of the Rio Grande 

10 designated as a component of the National Wild and 

11 Scenic Rivers System pursuant to the amendment 

12 made by section 2; and 

13 (2) the preparation of the study pursuant to the 

14 amendments made by section 3. 

15 (b) COMPOSITION.-The Board shall consist of 11 

16 members, appointed by the Secretary, of whom17 (1) 10 members shall be property owners along 

18 the segments of the Rio Grande designated and 

19 studied pursuant to the amendments made by this 

20 Act; and 

21 (2) 1 member shall be a representative of the 

22 village of Pilar. 

•HR 1471 m 
124 

4 

1 SEC. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF ORILLA VERDE RECREATION 

2 AREA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

4 the lands described in subsection (b) are withdrawn 

5 from6 (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 

7 under the public land laws; 

8 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

9 laws; and 

10 (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to min11 eral and geothermal leasing. 

12 (b) LANbs.-

13 (1) DESCRIPTION.-The lands referred to in 

14 subsection (a) comprise an area known as the 

15 "Orilla Verde Recreation Area", totaling approxi16 mately 1,349 acres, which were conveyed by the 

17 State of New Mexico to the United States on July 

18 23, 19'80, April 20, 1990, and July 17, 1990, as 

19 generally depicted on the map entitled "Proposed 

20 Recreation Addition to Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

21 River" and dated September 1992. 

22 (2) PuBLIC ACCESS.-The map referred to in 

23 paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for pub24 lie inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bu25 reau of Land Management. 

•HR 1471 m 
125 

5 

1 SEC. 6. COMPLETION OF PREHISTORIC TRACKWAYS STUDY. 

2 The Secretary is authorized to contract with the 

3 Smithsonian Institution for the completion of the pre4 historic trackways study required under section 303 of the 

5 Act entitled "An Act to conduct certain studies in the 

6 State of New Mexico", approved November 15, 1990 

7 (Public Law 101-578). 

0 

•HR 1471 m 

76-068 - 94 - 5 
103o CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

126 

S.375 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARcH.lS, 1993 

RefeiTed to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

lA 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating 

a segment of the Rio Grande in New Mexico as a component of 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 "Rio Grande Designa5 tion Act of 1993". 
127 

2 

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SCENIC RIVER. 

2 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new paragraph: 

5 "( ) RIO GRANDE, NEW MEx:rco.-The main stem 

6 from the southern boundary of the segment of the Rio 

7 Grande designated pursuant to paragraph ( 4), down8 stream approximately 12 miles to the west section line of 

9 Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 10 East, to be ad10 ministered by the Secretary of the Interior as a scenic 

11 river.". 

12 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF STUDY RIVER. 

13 (A) STUDY.-Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic 

14 Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at 

15 the end the following new paragraph: 

16 "( ) RIO GRANDE, NEW MEXICO.-The segment 

17 from the west section line of Section 15, Township 23 

18 North, Range 10 East, downstream approximately 8 miles 

19 to the southern line of the northwest quarter of Section 

20 34, Township 23 North, Range 9 East.". 

21 (b) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.-Section 5(b) of such 

22 Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

23 the following new paragraph: 

24 "( ) The study of the Rio Grande in New Mexico 

25 shall be completed and the report submitted not later than 

26 3 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph.". 

o8 3711 RFH 
128 

3 

1 SEC.~ RIO GBANDB CITIZBNS ADVISORY BOARD. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Not later than 90 days after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

4 Interior (referred to in this Act as the "Secretary") shall 

5 establish the Rio Grande Citizens Oversight Review Board 

6 (referred to in this Act as the "Board") to advise the Sec7 retary on matters pertaining ~ 

8 (1) the development and implementation of a 

9 management plan for the segment of the Rio Grande 

10 designated as a component of the National Wild and 

11 Scenic Rivers System pursuant to the amendment 

12 made by section 2; and 

13 (2) the preparation of the study pursuant to the 

14 amendments made by section 3. 

15 (b) CoMPOSITION.-The Board shall consist of 11 

16 members, appointed by the Secretary, ofwhom17 ( 1) 10 members shall be property owners along 

18 the segments of the Rio Grande designated and 

19 studied pUrsuant to the amendments made by this 

20 Act; and 

21 (2) 1 member shall be a representative of the 

22 village of Pilar. 

o8 1'115 RFII 
129 

4 

1 SEC. 5. WTrRDRAWAL OF ORHLA VERDE RECREATION 

2 AREA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

4 the lands described in subsection (b) are withdrawn 

5 from6 (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 

7 under the public land laws; 

8 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

9 laws; and 

10 (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to min11 eral and geothermal leasing. 

12 (b) LANDs.-

13 (1) DESCRIPTION.-The lands referred to in 

14 subsection (a) comprise an area known as the 

15 "Orilla Verde Recreation Area", totaling approxi16 mately 1,349 acres, which were conveyed by the 

17 State of New Mexico to the United States on July 

18 23, 1980, April 20, 1990, and July 17, 1990, as 

19 generally depicted on the map entitled "Proposed 

20 Recreation Addition to Rio Grande Wild and Scenic 

21 River" and dated September 1992. 

22 (2) PuBLIC ACCESS.-The map referred to in 

23 paragraph ( 1) shall be on file and available for pub24 lie inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bu25 reau of Land Management. 
130 

5 

1 SEC. 8. COMPLETION OF PREHISTORIC TRACKWAYS STUDY. 

2 The Secretary is authorized to contract with the 

3 Smithsonian Institution for the completion of the pre4 historic trackways study required under section 303 of the 

5 Act entitled "An Act to conduct certain studies in the 

6 State of New Mexico", approved November 15, 1990 

7 {Public Law 101-578). 

Passed the Senate March 17 (legislative day, March 

3), 1993. 

Attest: 

o8 1711 RFR 

WALTER J. STEWART, 

Secretary. 
131 

103D CONGRESS H R 2815 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To designate a portion of the Fannington River in Connecticut as a 

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 1993 

I 

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mrs. KE:I\"'1\'ELLY, Mr. GEJDENSON, 

Ms. DELAURO, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. FR..Al\"KS of Connecticut) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a portion of the Farmington River in Connecticut as a component of the National W:lld and Scenic 

Rivers System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Farmington W:lld and 

5 Scenic River Act". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that--

8 (1) Public Law 99-590 authorized the study of 

9 2 segments of the West Branch of the Farmington 
132 

2 

1 River, including an 11-mile headwater segment in 

2 Massachusetts and the uppermost 14-mile segment 

3 in Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the Wild 

4 and Scenic Rivers System, and created the Farming5 ton River Study Committee, consisting of represent6 atives from the 2 States, the towns bordering the 2 

7 segments, and other river interests, to advise the 

8 Secretary of the Interior in conducting the study 

9 and concerning management alternatives should the 

10 river be included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys11 tern; 

12 (2) the study determined that both segments of 

13 the river are eligible for inclusion in the Wild and 

14 Scenic Rivers System based upon their free-flowing 

15 condition and outstanding fisheries, recreation, wild16 life, and historic values; 

17 (3) the towns that directly abut the Connecticut 

18 segment (Hartland, Barkhamsted, New Hartford, 

19 and Canton), as well as the Town of Colebrook, 

20 which abuts the segment's major tributary, have 

21 · demonstrated their desire for national wild and sce22 nic river designation through town meeting actions 

23 endorsing designation; in addition, the 4 abutting 

24 towns have demonstrated their commitment to pro25 teet the river through the adoption of "river protec-

•BR 181111B 
133 

3 

tion overlay districts," which establish a uniform set2 back for new structures, new septic systems, sand 

3 and gravel extraction, and vegetation removal along 

4 the entire length of the Connecticut segment; 

5 ( 4) during the study, the Farmington River 

6 Study Committee and the National Park Service 

7 prepared a comprehensive management plan for the 

8 Connecticut segment (the "Upper Farmington River 

9 Management Plan", dated April 29, 1993) which es10 tablishes objectives, standards, and action programs 

11 that will ensure long-term protection of the river's 

12 outstanding values and compatible management of 

13 its land and water resources; and 

14 ( 5) the Farmington River Study Committee 

15 voted unanimously on April 29, 1993, to adopt the 

16 Plan and to recommend that Congress include the 

17 Connecticut segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

18 System in accordance with the spirit and provisions 

19 of the Upper Farmington River Management Plan, 

20 and to recommend that, in the absence of town votes 

21 supporting designation, no action be taken regarding 

22 wild and scenic river designation of the Massachu23 setts segment. 

·~ 2815 .m 
134 

4 

l SEC. 8. WILD, SCENIC, AND RECREATIONAL RIVER DES2 IGNATION. 

3 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding the following new 

5 paragraph at the end thereof: 

6 "( ) FARMINGTON RIVER, CONNECTICUT.-(A) DES7 IGNATION AND MANAGEMENT.-The 14-mile segment of 

8 the West Branch and mainstem extending from imme9 diately below the Goodwin Dam and Hydroelectric Project 

10 in Hartland, Connecticut, to the downstream end of the 

11 New Hartford-Canton, Connecticut, town line (hereinafter 

12 in this paragraph referred to as the 'segment'), to be ad13 ministered by the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation 

14 with the Farmington River Coordinating Committee es15 tablished under paragraph (B) as a recreational river. The 

16 segment shall be managed in accordance with the Upper 

17 Farmington River Management Plan, dated April 29, 

18 1993, adopted on April 29, 1993 by the Farmington River 

19 Study Committee (hereinafter in this paragraph referred 

20 to as the 'Plan'). The Plan shall be deemed to satisfy the 

21 requirement for a comprehensive management plan pursu22 ant to section 3( d) of this Act. 

23 "(B) MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.-To assist in the 

24 long-term protection of the segment and the implementa25 tion of this paragraph and the Plan, a Farmington River 

26 Coordinating Committee (hereinafter in this paragraph re-

.aauum 
135 

5 

1 ferred to as the 'Committee') shall be established within 

2 90 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph. 

3 The membership, functions, responsibilities, and adminis4 trative procedures of the Committee shall be as set forth 

5 in the Plan. The Committee shall not be a Federal advi6 sory committee, and shall not be subject to the provisions 

7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Act of October 

8 6, 1972; 86 Stat. 776; 5 U.S.C. App.). 

9 "(C) FEDERAL RoLE.-(i) The Director of the Na1 0 tiona! Park Service (hereinafter in this paragraph referred 

11 to as the 'Director') shall represent the Secretary in the 

12 implementation of the Plan and the provisions of this Act 

13 with respect to the segment designated by this paragraph, 

14 including the review of proposed federally assisted water 

15 resources projects which could have a direct and adverse 

16 effect on the values for which the segment was established, 

17 as authorized under section 7 (a) of this Act. 

18 "(ii) Pursuant to section lO(e) and section ll(b)(l) 

19 of this Act, the Director may enter into cooperative agree20 ments with the State of Connecticut, the towns of 

21 Colebrook, Hartland, Barkhamsted, New Hartford, and 

22 Canton, Connecticut, and the Committee. Such coopera23 tive agreements shall be consistent with the Plan and may 

24 include provisions for financial or other assistance from 

·~JSIII m 
136 

6 

1 the United States to facilitate the long-tenn protection, 

2 conservation, and enhancement of the segment. 

3 "(iii) The Director may provide technical assistance, 

4 staff support, and funding to assist in the implementation 

5 of the Plan. 

6 "(iv) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10(c) 

7 of this Act, no portion of the segment designated by this 

8 paragraph shall become a part of the National Park Sys9 tern nor shall it be subject to regulations which govern 

10 the National Park System. 

11 "(D) WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.-(i) In deter12 mining whether a proposed water resources project would 

13 have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which 

14 the segment designated by this paragraph was included 

15 in the national wild and scenic rivers system, the Secretary 

16 shall specifically consider the extent to which the project 

17 is consistent with the Plan. 

18 "(ii) Congress finds that the existing operation of the 

19 Colebrook Dam and Goodwin Dam hydroelectric facilities, 

20 together with associated transmission lines and other ex21 isting project works, pursuant to licenses or exemptions 

22 currently granted them under the Federal Power Act ( 41 

23 Stat. 1063; 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), is not incompatible 

24 with the designation of the segment referred to in sub25 paragraph (A) as a component of the national wild and 

•HR ll8tll m 
137 

7 

l scenic rivers system, and will not have a direct and adverse 

2 effect on, nor unreasonably diminish, the values for which 

3 the segment was established. Notwithstanding anything in 

4 this Act to the contrary, the designation of the river shall 

5 not affect the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

6 Commission to license or relicense (including exempting 

7 from licensing) the continued operation of the Colebrook 

8 Dam and Goodwin Dam hydroelectric projects, together 

9 with associated transmission lines and other project 

lO works, provided that such operation is consistent with the 

11 Plan. 

12 "(iii) Notwithstanding anything in this Act to the 

13 contrary, inclusion of the segment designated by this para14 graph in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall not im15 pair the continued operation of the Colebrook Dam and 

16 Reservoir by the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

17 for the purpose of flood control. 

18 "(iv) The Plan, including the detailed analysis of 

19 instream flow needs incorporated therein and such addi20 tional analysis as may be incorporated in the future, shall 

21 serve as the primary source of information regarding the 

22 flows needed to maintain instream resources and the po23 tential compatibility between resource protection and pos24 sible water supply withdrawals. 

•IJR.ll8111 m 
138 

8 

1 "(E) LAND MANAGEMENT.-(i) The zoning ordi2 nances duly adopted by the towns of Hartland, 

3 Barkhamsted, New Hartford, and Canton, Connecticut, 

4 including the 'river protection overlay districts' in effect 

5 on the date of enactment of this paragraph, satisfy the 

6 standards and requirements of section 6(c) of this Act. 

7 For the purpose of section 6(c), such towns shall be 

8 deemed 'villages' and the provisions of that section, which 

9 prohibit Federal acquisition of lands by condemnation, 

10 shall apply. 

11 "(ii) Nothing in this paragraph or this Act shall au12 thorize management by the United States Government of 

13 lands which are not owned by the United States Govern14 ment. All lands along the segment and its tributaries shall 

15 be managed by the owners of such land. 

16 "(iii) The United States Government shall not ac17 quire land along the segment or its tributaries for the pur18 poses of wild and scenic river designation. Nothing in this 

19 paragraph or this Act shall prohibit Federal acquisition 

20 of land along the segment for other purposes, or the use 

21 of Federal funds administered by State or local govern22 ments to acquire land along the segment. 

23 "(F) MISCELLANEOUS.-Notwithstanding anything 

24 in section 3(b) of this Act to the contrary, no distinct lat25 eral boundary shall be established for the segment of the 

•HR 2815 m 
139 

9 

1 river designated by this paragraph, as set forth in the 

2 Plan. 

3 "(G) FUNDING.-There are authorized to be appro4 priated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

5 purposes of this paragraph.". 

0 

•BR ll811 m 
140 

Mr. VENTO. I note in reading the testimony last night from the 

gentlewoman that she intends to work closely with the staff, has 

been working closely with the staff to resolve whatever outstanding 

questions may occur with regards to her measure. 

Copies, of course, of the materials are before the members and 

staff. We are pleased to welcome Congresswoman Johnson from the 

Sixth District to explain briefly her bill, then move on to other witnesses that we have. 

Congresswoman Johnson, welcome. 

Without objection, all members statements and testimony of witnesses will be made a part of the record in its entirety. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Congresswoman Johnson, please proceed to summarize for us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY L. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am simply going to submit my testimony for the record because 

you have been kind enough to allow four witnesses from Connecticut to speak in greater depth, and I think it will be useful to you 

to hear them discuss why the unusual process that we allowed in 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study bill that we passed some years 

ago has been extremely fruitful, not only for preservation, but for 

local river management, and has laid a solid foundation for the 

preservation of this river that simply couldn't have been laid without Federal leadership and Federal involvement. So I am going to 

yield my time to them. · Thank you for your attention. I thank particularly Stan Sloss for 

his help in working through this. And, while we have a ways to go together, I think this testimony today will help us in that work. 

And I thank you for your cooperation and consideration over the 

nearly 10 years that we have had this project before your committee. 

[Prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson follows:] 
NANCY l.. JUHNSON 6;MQISfiiiCT.~ut 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

--· HIAln< 

,...,. COMMITTEE ON 

STANDARDS OF OfFJCIAL CONDUCT 

141 

~ongreii of tbe 'llniteb 6tatei 

J;oullt of l\tprtlltntatibtll 

IIU!Jington, me: 2051!H)706 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

THE HONORABLE NANCY L. JOHNSON 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CONNECTICUT 

BEFORE THE 

WA$HINGlOMOFHCl. 

343 CAll- HouR 0Mcl IUIUIIIoKl 

w~. oc 20111--0708 

TIW'MOfll:(202) 221-4478 

,...,...,.OffiCI: 410 MYm.llniUT-Ium 200 

NIW IIIIT....,._ CT 08013 

TIUI'HOIII:(2031223-1412 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

***** 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

***** 

FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION FOR 

THE WEST BRANCH OF THE FAR11INGTON RIVER 
142 

MR. CBAJ:IUIAJI: 

Good aorninq and thank you for qivinq me and •Y constituents 

the opportunity to testify about a project that is near and dear to 

our hearts. 

Back in 1984 when l: first introduced leqislation authorizinq 

a study of the West Branch of the Farminqton River in ay district, J: 

had no idea that it would take nearly 10 years to qat to this point. 

Yet, with the dedicated efforts of the 17 members of the rarminqton 

River Advisory Committee, the local Watershed Associa·tion, the 

Metropolitan District Commission (MDC], the Boston office of the 

National Park Service, and countless other individuals who worked so 

hard to protect the Farminqton, we sense victory is near at hand. 

You and your coaaittee can make it happen, and we trust you will be 

convinced of the importance of this project after hearinq fro• us 

this aorninq. 

The Farminqton River seqaent ve seek to protect is a freeflovinq jewel that enhances the quality of life in Connecticut. 

Thouqh it is in a relatively urban area of our country, it retains 

the rural ambiance and beauty of the auch lonqer and isolated rivers 

of Aaarica•s western states. 

We seek to protect the river for many reasons, not the least 

of which is its siqnificant recreational and scenic value to the 

thousands of people who use it annually. l: have had the qoo4 

fortune to enjoy the tranquility of the river and note vith pleasure 

that many New Bnqlanders cite the rarainqton as a fly-fishinq 

destination second to none and nationally ranked kayakers find the 

whitewater challenqinq. 
143 

paqe two 

The national siqnificance of the Parminqton is underscored by 

the breadth of support in evidence here today. In years past, it 

vas not unusual for Parainqton Valley residents to qreet with 

suspicion the water needs of nearby Hartford residents and look 

askance at proposals to divert additional water from the Parainqton. 

Thanks to an unprecedented and cooperative effort between the 

connecticut Department of Environmental Protection [DBPJ and the 

MDC, and with the federal leadership of the Wild and Scenic study, a 

thorouqh in-stream flow analysis has been completed. Armed with 

information from that study, a comprehensive Kanaqement Plan, and 

the diliqent work of the Park service, DBP, and MDC staff, I believe 

ve nov have crafted a bill that recoqnizes the leqitimate concerns 

of all. 

My bill, B.a. 2815, seeks to address the qoals laid out by my 

constituents; namely, 

- lonq-term protection for the river, 

- maximum local control, 

- minimal federal intrusion, and 

- no federal land acquisition. 

Knovinq of your responsibilities reqardinq future rivers 

bills, xr. Chairman, we have met with your staff to discuss the 

precise lanquaqe of the bill and are ready to continue those 

discussions to advance our shared qoals. I and my staff look 

forward to the opportunity to continue the process, as I am 

committed to the desiqnation of the Farminqton in the 103rd 

conqress. 
144 

page three 

Let ae close by thanking you an4 your able staff - especially 

Mr. Sloss an4 Mr. Christensen - for moving us closer to 4esignstion. 

znactment of the Farmington legislation in this, the Twenty-Fifth 

year of the Wil4 an4 Scenic Rivers System, un4oubte4ly will be 

remembered as a aileatona in the annals of American environmental 

protection. 

-30-
145 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you very much. You are welcome to sit 

with the committee as your schedule allows today. You may want 

to return when we get specifically to focusing with the park Service 

on the Farmington River in Connecticut that you are most interested in. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. So you can monitor the time and your presence if it 

is of any interest to you in that matter, in terms of joining the committee. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will do that. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased to welcome the Director of the Bureau of Lands 

Management, Department of the Interior, Mr. James Baca. 

Mr. Baca, welcome. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Your testimony has been made a part of the record. 

I was going to say we are appreciative of the revitalization and actions that you have taken with the Department of the Interior in 

terms of trying to, especially with regards to issues that have been 

long latent and need to be addressed that are not the subject of 

this hearing. 

But I am hopeful that we can continue to work together on a 

number of things. I know one of our outstanding tasks is the reauthorization bill and trying to work that through. So I am mindful 

of that and of the work that you have done, and hopefully, we'll be 

able to formulate whatever changes along with the ideas and concepts that others have to come forth with a good reauthorization 

bill in the near future. 

STATEMENT OF JIM BACA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are putting together a 

pretty good shopping list on that reauthorization bill for you. It 

seems like every day we have another idea. 

And I can never help but notice that on our maps, the BLM maps 

are always looked at and there is a title there, "These lands are 

not yet named," so we are trying to have a contest to see what we 

can call our BLM lands. So that might be something to go in there 

too. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here today, especially on this 

matter, since it involves my home State of New Mexico and an area 

that I am very familiar with. S. 375 and H.R. 1471 would add a 

12-mile segment of the Rio Grande in the State to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a scenic designation. We fully 

support these bills with a few amendments which I will discuss 

shortly. 

Section 6 of this bill, by the way, relates to an entirely different 

matter and authorizes the Secretary to contract with the Smithsonian Institute for a study of the Prehistoric Trackways, also in New 

Mexico. And that study was required by law. Mr. Chairman, when the Act was passed in 1968 the Rio Grande 

was one of the first rivers to be included in the Wild and Scenic 

System, and that was a 48-mile segment from about the border of 

Colorado on down past Taos. These bills would extend this designa-
146 

tion approximately 12 miles and place it under the administration 

of the Secretary of Interior as a scenic river. 

This bill also would protect about 1349 acres known as the Rio 

Verde Recreation Area through withdrawals from disposition under 

the public land laws, including mineral development laws. 

It is especially appropriate to add this 12-mile section right now 

because of the work that we have been doing in this area because 

of some land conveyances that have been made since 1980. We do 

recommend, however, an amendment to withdraw 5688 acres, instead of the 1349 acres now covered in these bills. We have recently approved a resource management plan out of Taos to expand 

the Rio Verde Recreation Area from 1349 to 8729 acres. About 

5600-5700 acres of this is public land. The rest is private land 

which we are working on with the landowners. Mr. Chairman, I am excited about doing this. I guess another difference we might have with the bill is the Advisory Committee. As 

you know, the executive branch of government is under executive 

directive from the President to do away with advisory boards rather than increase the number of them. 

As you know, in our grazing reform-! almost hate to bring that 

up--we are changing our Grazing Advisory Boards into more or 

less well rounded Advisory Councils. We have other actions under 

FLPMA that could take care of the business of this proposed Advisory Council. 

It is composed essentially of landowners. In fact, all are landowners along the river. If we are going to have an advisory board, 

my only suggestion would be to make it a little more well rounded 

so that recreationists and maybe even a couple of ranchers and 

other types could be on that advisory board. 

In closing, I would say that we enthusiastically support these 

bills. It is something good for New Mexico and for the Nation because of the beauty of this river. It really is something. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Baca on H.R. 1471/S. 375 follows:] 
147 

OCT 2 8 1993 

S'l'A'l'IDID'f OJ' JIJI BACA, DIRBC'l'OR, BURDU OJ' LUD DIIAGIIICD'f, UIII'l'BD 

S'l'A'l'U DDU'l'IID'l' OJ' 'l'BB Ill'l'DIOR, BBJ'ORB 'l'BB SUBCOIIIli'l"l'BB OJf 

IIA'l'IODL PUU, I'ORU'l'S UD PUBLIC LUDS, COIIIII'l"l'BB OR IIA'l'URAL 

RBSOURCBS, UBI'l'BD 8'l'A'l'B8 HOUSB OJ' RBPRB8D'fA'l'IVB8 OR H,R, 1471 UD 

8. 375, 'l'BB PROPOSBD "RIO GRUDB DBSIGD'l'IOK AC'l' OJ' 199311 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 

discuss s. 375 and H.R. 1471, bills to add a 12-mile segment of 

the Rio Grande in my State of New Mexico to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (System) with a "scenic" desiqnation. We 

support enactment of these bills with amendments that I will 

discuss. 

This segment of the Rio Grande exhibits outstandinq natural and 

scenic qualities. In addition, the area receives national 

attention in travel publications, and attracts whitewater 

enthusiasts from around the Nation. 

The bills we are discussinq today, identical in text, would 

provide scenic desiqnation for this river segment. They also 

place in study status under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act (Act) an additional s-mile segment of the Rio Grande. We 

support these study provisions. 

Section 6 of the bills relates to an entirely different matter 

and authorizes the Secretary to contract with the Smithsonian 

Institution for completion of a study of the Prehistoric 

Trackways area, also in New Mexico. That study is required by 

existinq law. 
148 

When the Act waa paasad in 1968, one of the firat rivera 

designated for inclusion in the System was a 48-aila segment of 

the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The designated portion ran froa 

the Colorado State line to the Taos Junction bridge where state 

Highways 567 and 570 intersect. 

H.R. 1477 and s. 375 would extend the existing designation of the 

Rio Grande in New Mexico downstream for approximately 12 ailes 

and place it under administration of the Secretary of the 

Interior as a scenic river. The bills also protect about 1,349 

acres known aa the •orilla Verde Recreation Area• through 

withdrawal froa diapoaition under the public land lawa, including 

aineral davelopaant laws. 

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acquired the Rio 

Granda Gorge State Park, thus allowing coaplation of a aerie• of 

related land conveyances which had begun in 1980, in support of 

BLM's axiating River Management Program. Following thia land 

tranafar, the BLM daaignatad the land& aa the Orilla Verda 

Recreation Area. With the landa nov under BLM adainiatration, it 

is especially appropriate to add the 12-aila aaqaent to the 

southern and of the axiating federally daaignata4 Rio Granda Wild 

and scenic River. Withdrawal of the land& and ainerala, aa 

provided in the bill, will aupport aanag ... nt aa a acanic river 

and provide ad.ditional protection. However, we racoaaand an 

aaendaant to withdraw 5,688 acres inataad of the 1,349 acre• nov 
149 

3 

covered in the bills. The BLM has recently approved a Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) amendment to expand the Orilla Verda 

Recreation area from 1,349 to 8,729 acre. About 5,688 acres of 

this total are public lands all warranting this protection. All 

of these lands possess significant scenic qualities. We urge 

enlargement of the withdrawal area to cover the entire recreation 

area as expanded. 

Section 4 of the bills directs the Secretary to establish an 11-

member Rio Grande citizens Oversight Review Board (Board) to 

advise the Secretary on development and implementation of a 

management plan for the new 12-mile scenic segment and in 

preparation of the study of the s-mile aeqaent mandated by 

section 3 of the bills. This Board would be comprised of 

10 members who are property owners along the river segment and 

1 member who represents the village of Pilar. 

We do not favor establishing such an advisory board as proposed 

in the legislation. Provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), together with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivera Act, prescribe public participation requirements, 

pertaining to notification, consultation, coordination; and 

public comment in planning. 

The BLM traditionally has done considerable analysis of and given 

serious consideration to concerns of the local citizenry and 
4 

affected governmental entities, as well as others, in the 

planning phase and in implementation of decisions. I can assure 

you that we will follow that tradition within the context of 

FLPMA, the Act and other applicable law in this case. 

Furthermore, on February 10, 1993, the President issued an 

Executive Order directing each Federal Agency to prepare a 

detailed review of all existing advisory committees. As a 

general policy, and pending completion of this review, the 

Administration does not ·support provisions that would establish 

or reauthorize advisory committees. 

In closing, I emphasize our enthusiastic support for the major 

features of the bills, and urge that a bill be enacted with the 

amendments we have recommended as quickly as possible, so that 

this outstanding river segment can be afforded the formal 

recognition it deserves. Thank you for your consideration of our 

views. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
151 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, thank you very much, Director Baca, for 

your testimony. 

I think you know about the genesis of advisory boards or citizen 

review groups. Some of them were by executive order. The ones 

that you articulated just a moment ago with regards to grazing, 

started out, I guess, legislative and then they were continued by 

executive order. 

I think that probably the concern here, and I assume the reason 

this is here so prominently in the bill is because it has been something that had been agreed to with the local community in that 

area. Congressman Richardson isn't here today to tell me that, but 

I am certain that is it. 

I tend to agree with you, though, that if, in fact, it is the judgment of the committee that there is some sentiment for maintaining this that it ought to be structured appropriately so that it does 

represent all the different interests as opposed to the sort of-since 

it seems to me to be skewed in one direction here. It is advisory 

only, but I think it would be more useful to have contrasting and 

a mosaic of different views on that in that area. 

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. BACA. I think it is also an opportunity for the different parties to sit around the table together and it really adds, I think, to 

the communication between the different parties. 

Mr. VENTO. This helps. I mean this has-I suppose there also 

ought to be some sort of sunset on it if we are going to do it, once 

this has been established. 

There is usually a period of activity in terms of developing a plan 

or developing a particular policy at the ground level that isn't articulated in the law. And so that for a period of time this is useful. 

After that, if it is necessary to keep going, there should be some 

sort of recognition or a way to review this. I think that is the concern the President has in terms of advisory groups. Early on they 

fill, I think, an important role, and once they are established in law 

then sometimes they don't function after that. 

As far as the section 6, Director Baca, this is the section that you 

referred to that really is unrelated. It provides for the contract with 

the Smithsonian for the completion of the Prehistoric Trackways 

study. I guess the concern here is that this was enacted and not 

completed. What is the status of that study? 

Mr. BACA. I believe there was a problem with the definition of 

who could do the study. If I am not incorrect. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not familiar with the problem. But in any case, 

dolou think that that is a study that is worthwhile in terms ofan is important to BLM to complete? 

Mr. BACA. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean, do 1ou have any--

Mr. BACA. Yes, I do think it is important to complete. I haven't 

visited the site myself yet. It is not well known to a lot of people, 

so they can protect it. But it is quite a trackway of dinosaurs that 

the Smithsonian and the Museum of Natural History in New Mexico are very interested in. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, has there been some study work done already 

on it? 
152 

Mr. BACA. Yes, there has. There has been some study work, but 

under another public law a study was required and the Smithsonian will be carrying out that study through section 6 of this bill. 

Mr. VENTO. The purpose for this study would be to determine the 

natural features, the fossil record, I guess; some of the paleontological importance of this particular area, I guess. 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. I assume that is the case. 

This is sort of an unusual study for the BLM to do. You would 

probably rely on outside expertise in any case, wouldn't you, either 

from the Park Service or from theMr. BACA. Well, I think we probably would. I don't know that we 

have any paleontologists, you know, dinosaur-lookers on our staff. I always have trouble with that even after seeing "Jurassic Park." 

Mr. VENTO. Paleontologists. 

Mr. BACA. But the Smithsonian is really well situated, as is the 

Museum of Natural History in New Mexico, to take a good hard 

look at this. And, as I understand it, the Smithsonian will cooperate with the museum there who wanted to take a good look at it 

too. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it only authorizes you to do this. I expect you 

have the authority anyway. But I think this is the way that-I expect that the reason this is here, again, is because either Congressman Richardson or Senator Bingaman or Domenici are concerned 

that we move ahead with this. Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. And so this is sort of their way of underlining it. I 

don't think it does any harm to have it here, even though it is redundant. If I were concerned about codification and cleaning up the 

books, this wouldn't be here. But I think a purpose may be served by it, again. So I don't have 

any great problem with it. I know that my-my learned colleague 

and counsel here may not like to see this sort of redundancy in the 

language. 

What about the 48 miles? I was sort of surprised at the amount 

of designation. Is this all within New Mexico, the 48 miles, currently? 

Mr. BACA. Yes, all48 miles are within New Mexico. Mr. VENTO. So none of it is on the border with Mexico? 

Mr. BACA. Oh, no. This is way north of there. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So there haven't been any outstanding problems with regards to managing it. 

What is the Federal, or the national ownership, I should say, of 

these lands? 

Mr. BACA. If I could show you on the map? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, you can. It is just that the microphone won't be 

able to follow you. 

She will help you out there. That is good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BACA. This is the 12 miles? 

Mr. VENTO. The red portion is, yes. 

Mr. BACA. The red portion. And we come down to here and this 

is the new portion which will be studied. And then there will be 

a study area also proposed here of another 8 miles. 

Mr. VENTO. So we got 12 to be designated--
153 

Mr. BACA. Twelve miles in all. 

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. Which has been studied and recommended as-it is scenic, isn't it? 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, scenic. And then the other portion, the 8 miles, 

remains. There, there is no study completed. 

Mr. BACA. No study. 

Mr. VENTO. But the percentage of lands then-! can't tell. Now, 

the orange lands that I see indicated there is Native American? 

Mr. BACA. Yes, it is. That is Taos Pueblo right here. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. I don't think that scores as public land. In 

other words, what it looks like to me, esrecially in the new segment we are adding, is that almost all o it is national lands on 

both sides. 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. So we would be precluded from any type of a purchase of additional lands from unwilling sellers. But a willing seller, you could still purchase it. 

Mr. BACA. Well, there are private lands along here and some little communities like Pilar right here, sit along the river. But we 

don't need to buy any more land in there. 

Mr. VENTO. Your guess is that the plan that has come forth, the 

study did not indicate any need to purchase access. You've got 

plenty of opportunity. 

Mr. BACA. Plenty for access. 

Mr. VENTO. Director, do you know how the river is now used? Is 

it used for recreation? 

Mr. BACA. It is used for recreation and fishing, a lot of rafting, 

wild river experience. Too wild for me. I won't go down it. 

Mr. VENTO. I see. Well, that sounds sensible, I think. Sometimes 

we get-they are very careful where they put me when I go out 

there too. Sometimes too careful. 

But in any case, well, I think this is a noncontroversial measure 

from what I can see, and judging from the ownership and the use 

there is no impact. All of this is pretty natural. 

I note that it didn't qualify for wild. Is that because there had 

been some modification of the river? Or what was the basis for 

that? 

Mr. BACA. I think under the definitions of wild it may not have 

qualified. There was a road too near. There are things like that. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. BACA. I don't want to leave the impression that there won't 

be any land purchased. There is that recreation area. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I was going to ask about that. It is a good 

thing that you mentioned that, because there is a big difference in 

the bill here concerning the amount. You are saying you have 8000 

acres now that you have designated and that you are recommending, rather than the 1400 acres being designated as recreation 

area, nearly 5700 acres. 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. Is this a new development? 

Mr. BACA. We have done some land exchanges and conveyances. 

I know that the BLM picked up a State park that had been there. 

It is essentially because of a resource management plan that has 
154 

been recently approved in New Mexico that gives us a better opportunity to rrotect a larger area of land. 

Most o it is already government land, 5600 acres of that, and 

we are working with the landowners in that area. We are not going 

to go in and condemn them or anything. We are working with 

them. 

Mr. VENTO. You hope to exchange out? 

Mr. BACA. Exchange, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. The problem is that area along the lower segment? Where is it located on that map? 

You just explain. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Would one of you go up and point it out? 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. We have got some help here, so that you don't 

have to be moving the mike. 

Okay. It is down in the new segment of the designated area that 

is being recommended for designation as scenic, right in that region. 

The point I was going to make, Director, if this land is land that 

was recreational land and then you change it now as a park, the 

idea if we just leave it in the public domain it could actually be 

subject to mineral claims and other types of activities. Is that one 

of the points that you are making? 

Mr. BACA. Well, we are asking for withdrawal. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand. But the basis for that is the designation of recreational areas. You have got a temporary withdrawal, 

but you actually want to do something legislatively with it now to 

make this a recreation area. 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. AB BLM recreation areas go, it is small. But I guess 

the point is that in conjunction with the Wild and Scenic River that 

it makes some sense. 

Mr. BACA. It really does make sense and it is an extremely beautiful area. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have a lot of people that use that area at this 

time? I guess they used it as a State park. 

Mr. BACA. I don't know what the attendance is there, but I think 

once we get it put together there will be a lot more people using 

that area. 

Mr. VENTO. The river has a lot of recreation use in terms of, as 

you pointed out, whitewater rafting and other types of uses. Fishing, which is very important. Fishing is very important. 

Mr. BACA. I think it is getting so much use that that is why this 

Advisory Board was put together. The landowners are concerned 

about the amount of use it is getting and the amount of recreation. 

There are quite a few rafters going down that river during the 

spring, and I think they feel a little bit inundated with 

recreationists and that is why this Advisory Committee was put in 

there. I think they wanted this. 

Mr. VENTO. So the Advisory Committee will actually be for the 

entire river stretch? 

Mr. BACA. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. You know, for what is essentially now in this bill, if 

it is signed into law, would be 60 miles plus the-what you are 

asking for--
155 

Mr. BACA. That is a good question. I don't know that I can answer that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it would be. I expect it would be. 

Mr. BACA. In fact, just for the new part. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. BACA. It could be the whole thing? 

I am told it could be the whole stretch of river. 

Mr. VENTO. Why would we subdivide it or segment it like that? 

It is probably something we should make clear with the sponsors 

of it. 

It only limits it to the new area, but I wonder why, or if that 

really is the intention. We will have to get through with that. I just 

assumed that it was. But staff points out it leads to the implementation of the segment designated in section 2, which is 12 miles, 

and the study under 3. 

It seems to me we ought to get as many miles per gallon as we 

can out of this Advisory Committee if we are going to set it up. 

Currently, you must have advisory committees on the 48-mile segment. That was designated sometime ago, though. 

Mr. BACA. That was one of the first back in 1968. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Normally the BLM will have some sort of advisory groups set up with regards to land planning and especially for 

an area like this. 

Mr. BACA. We have our Grazing Advisory Boards and we have 

other boards, multiple-use boards. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I think the multiple-use would obviously be appropriate for that. But they are asking for a special focus. 

But it seems to me that it is pretty hard to separate the headwaters, the waters up ahead of this, from the other in terms of 

what advice you are getting, so you may as well give them the appropriate charge if there is no contention about that. Of course, you 

don't need-maybe they just want to focus on the lower segment 

for a period of time while it is being implemented and be done with 

it. 

Well, I appreciate the efforts that you make. Your presence here 

today speaks to your commitment to this particular proposal, and 

we look forward to working closely with you on it. I believe we have 

some additional witnesses later. 

I think most of our witnesses, as Congresswoman Johnson had 

indicated, are here on the Farmington, so we are going to move 

ahead to that. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

We then will turn to Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart is with the National Park Service, and is the spokesman for the Department of 

the Interior and the Park Service on H.R. 2815. He is the Assistant 

Director for Planning. 

Mr. Stewart. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STEWART, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

FOR PLANNING, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. STEWART. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 
156 

I have with me this morning Mr. Phil Huffman, who is the 

project manager for the Farmington River study, to help us with 

any detailed studies about, or detailed questions about the studies 

and the relationships with the local people. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide your subcommittee with 

the Department's views on H.R. 2815. We do recommend enactment of the bill. 

H.R. 2815 would designate approximately 14 miles of the west 

branch of the Farmington River in Connecticut as a component of 

the National Wild and Scenic River System. Management of the 

river would be accomplished by the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with a coordinating committee required to be established 

by the bill. 

Management would be in accordance with a management plan, 

which has already been adopted on April 29, 1993, by the Farmington River Study Committee. 

The bill also specifically provides that no portion of the river 

shall become part of the National Park System, that zoning ordinances in five Connecticut towns prohibit Federal acquisition by 

condemnation within those towns, that the United States Government shall not acquire land along the segment for the purpose of 

the Wild and Scenic River designation, and that no lateral boundary shall be established for the river. 

The National Park Service would be authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the States and five designated towns 

and the coordinating committee. This committee is required to be 

established within 90 days. The bill authorizes service to provide 

technical assistance, staff support and funding to assist in the implementing of these management plans. 

We estimate that it will cost less than $100,000 a year to effect 

the Park Service's role. 

And that summarizes my testimony. I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Stewart on H.R. 2815 follows:] 
157 

STATEHBHT OF JAMES W. STEWART, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANNING, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 2815, A BILL TO 

DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER IN CONNECTICUT AS A 

COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM. 

October 28, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide your 

Subcommittee with the views of the Department of the Interior on 

H.R. 2815. 

We recommend enactment of the bill, although we urge the 

Committee to defer consideration of the proposed advisory 

committee until the Administration has completed its review of 

all existing advisory 9ommittees. 

H.R. 2815 would designate approximately 14 miles of the West 

Branch and mainstem of the Farmington River in Connecticut as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Management of the river would be accomplished by the Secretary of 

the Interior in cooperation with a coordinating committee 

required to be established by the bill. Management would be in 

accordance with the management plan adopted on April 29, 1993, 

by the Farmington River Study committee. 

The bill includes special provisions that declare the existing 

Colebrook Dam and Goodwin Dam hydroelectric facilities are not 

76-068 - 94 - 6 
1~ 

2 

incompatible with river designation, and declare that river 

designation will have no effect on continued operation of the 

Colebrook Dam and Reservoir by the Corps of Engineers. 

The bill also specifically provides that no portion of the river 

shall become part of the National Park system; that zoning 

ordinances in four Connecticut towns prohibit Federal acquisition 

by condemnation within those towns; that the United States 

Government shall not acquire land along the segment for the 

purposes of wild and scenic river designation; and that no 

lateral boundary shall be established for the river segment. 

In 1986, title II of Public Law 99-590 designated segments of the 

West Branch Farmington River in connecticut and Massachusetts for 

study as potential components of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (Act of October 30, 1986, 100 stat. 3332). That 

law required a report of the study within three fiscal years. It 

also established a 17-member study committee appointed by the 

Secretary to advise the Secretary in conducting the study and 

concerning management alternatives should the river be included 

in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The committee was 

to terminate upon completion of the study or publication of 

management alternatives should the river be included in the 

system, whichever was later. 
159 

3 

The National Park Service has not completed the study authorized 

in 1986. We have, however, developed, in cooperation with the 

study committee, a river management plan. This plan establishes 

standards for resource protection and identifies a range of 

actions that can be taken by local interests. All of the towns 

along the study segment in the State of Connecticut have endorsed 

the plan; none of the towns in Massachusetts has endorsed it. 

To complete the study process, the National Park Service would 

prepare a draft report and forward it to the Secretary of the 

Interior for transmittal by the President to Congress. 

Given the support of the management plan by the Connecticut 

towns, we have no objection to the designation in that State as 

provided in this legislation. And given the opposition to the 

plan in Massachusetts, we see no purpose in carrying the study 

process further for the segment in that State. 

Under the bill, the National Park Service is authorized to enter 

into cooperative agreements with the State and five designated 

towns and the Coordinating Committee. This committee is required 

to be established within 90 days. The bill authorizes the 

Service to provide technical assistance, staff support, and 

funding to assist in implementing the management plan. We 
100 

4 

estimate that these costs would not exceed $100,000 per year. 

Mr. Chairman, the 14-mile segment designated in this bill is 

eligible in our judgement for designation as part of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The segment is an important 

resource of recreational, wildlife, and historical value. We 

therefore recommend that Congress complete the process, amend 

paragraph (B), and enact this legislation. 

on February 10, 1993, the president issued Executive Order 12838, 

"Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees," 

ordering each agency to prepare a detailed review of all existing 

advisory committees. As a general policy, and pending completion 

of this review, the Administration does not support provisions, 

such as paragraph (B) on pages 4 and 5, that would establish or 

reauthorize advisory commissions. 

We also cannot support the prevision in paragraph (B) that would 

exempt the proposed Farmington River Coordination committee from 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. These 

provisions should apply to every advisory committee established 

under Federal law. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have. 
161 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Stewart, for your testimony. I had 

the opportunity to look it over last night. The bill has some unique 

provisos to accomplish the purposes that Congresswoman Johnson 

and apparently that the study committee came out with. 

Throughout the bill I note that it relies on the plan, sort of indicating the guidelines and so forth that we should follow. That is 

putting that really in the law. That the entire plan would then be 

referenced here. This plan is dated and so forth. 

This is not the usual way that we function in terms of designating segments, is it? 

Mr. STEWART. No, sir, it is not. It may be an oversimplification, 

but this is more analogous to a designation under 2(a)(ii) of the Act 

in which instead of the Secretary making the designation, the Congress would make the designation. 

In the State of Connecticut they do not have a Wild and Scenic 

Rivers system presently. I underst~d that they are working on 

such a system. But this would be managed pretty much as a 2(a)(ii) 

river would be. 

Mr. VENTO. So you think the consistency then is in reference to 

the 2(a)(ii) provisions as opposed to what we normally provide, and 

that is why it appears in this particular form which is not usual, 

as I said. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. There are some other provisions that you have outlined in your testimony, but one of the key questions of this, getting to the heart of this issue very quickly is-has the Park Service 

reviewed the zoning ordinance of the towns cited in the bill? 

The reason that becomes important is to determine whether or 

not in the view of the Park Service these ordinances meet the requirements of the basic Wild and Scenic River Act, section 6(c). 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. We have reviewed them. In fact, we have 

worked with the towns, the Park Service has and the planning 

team, and we are satisfied that the zoning ordinances and the pro- visions that have been made in them will adequately protect this 

section of river. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand that they do. 

And the other point here that comes through, apparently, in just 

some of the general reading that I have concluded, is that this segment of the Farmington River is all within Connecticut and that 

there is a segment that is in, apparently, Massachusetts, the west 

branch, in which the study and the controversy is precluded or has 

not permitted you to come forth with a positive recommendation. 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know how to put that delicately. They don't 

want designation. 

Mr. STEWART. No. 

Mr. VENTO. I was trying to understand it. So I think it is indicative, of the contentious nature and the intention that might exist 

with regard to designation of this 14-mile segment in Connecticut. 

I too had concerns about the management committee. It should 

not be considered an advisory committee. It actually sets it up as 

a commission or a committee to actually be operative, so I am a 

little uneasy about that. It says it shall not be an advisory committee, shall not be subject to provisions of the Federal Advisory Act, 
162 

which therefore means that it is subject to what? Whatever we 

write in the law here? Is that correct? 

Mr. STEWART. I believe that is correct, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Now, the reason I am concerned is because I think 

it is always easier to reference and to have some sort of commonalities in terms of a management committee or a commission, or 

whatever we want to refer to it as, where we have something that 

is set up we know then can reference and define what its powers 

are. 

This management committee type of structure when referenced 

in law as much as-what would you do in terms of the State designation of it as a Wild and Scenic River? Would you have such a 

management committee? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, that would be under the prerogative of the 

State if they want to have such a management committee. 

Mr. VENTO. But we are actually setting it up here in the national 

law, and I don't know of any other instance where we have done 

this. 

It may be-l know the intention of the sponsor and those who 

are proposing it is that, you know, it fits this particular need. But 

the problem that it presents to me is that each time I deal with 

a Wild and Scenic River bill, these things, these measures have a 

way of coming back and being placed in every designation of every 

river that we do. And so it becomes then the common mean. So I 

would pay close attention to it. 

And besides, I could roll out that old chestnut that comes back 

to us about the constitutionality of this sort of delegation of power. 

So that represents problems. 

I think that I can assure you, Mr. Stewart, and the sponsor, that 

the Justice Department would have deep concerns about this sort 

of delegation. 

So, I understand the problem that you are trying to solve and I 

will work with you to solve it. However, I wanted to alert you to 

both the precedent issue and the Justice Department, no doubt the 

Justice Department-! can't speak for the Justice Department. 

Mr. STEWART. I understand the principle of having an 

overarching coordinating committee is perhaps more important in 

the town system that they have in the Northeast States because of 

the way they are set up. This would facilitate management of the 

river, and I think the study committee really was very helpful in 

reaching the point which we are at now. 

Mr. VENTO. AB you know, Mr. Stewart, section lO(c) of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act addresses the status of designated rivers 

that are managed by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and, in effect, it associates those rivers with the National Park System and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Some questions about the section of the Act as implemented in 

practice. In the case of rivers and areas of little or no nationally 

owned lands such as in Farmington we don't have a lot of national 

lands--

Mr. STEWART. Right. 
163 

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. What has been the effect of Wild and 

Scenic designation in those areas in tenns of the objectives and 

methods of the Park Service? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, the role of the Park Service, of course, would 

be to assist in the implementation of the plan. One of the big items 

would be the review of any Federally-assisted water resources 

projects that would affect the resources of the river as provided for 

in section 7(a). 

And we would also be able to enter into cooperative agreements 

with the coordinating committee and the four towns involved to facilitate the long-tenn protection of the river. And we would provide 

technical assistance, staff support, and the law does provide for 

funding to assist the implementation. So that would be really the 

role. 

And lO(c), of course, if it is not a unit of the National Park System, a lot of other things would be affected there such as our ability to condemn land or acquire land and other things, and we 

would not have an on-site presence there at all. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, this particular bill, I think, precludes the 

use of condemnation. 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. You feel that you don't need that particular authority here? 

Mr. STEWART. In this case, viewing the river management plan 

and the commitment that has been shown by the towns, it appears 

that we can assure the protection of the river under the local management and not through the National Park System. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, what would the--in the case of an administrative designation and the zoning were to change so that it would be 

adverse and adversely affect the qualities of the resource in such 

a way as to diminish them or to be in conflict with the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act, at that time it would lose designation. But if we 

put this into law, how do we remedy that? 

Mr. STEWART. I don't know how you would do that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think the thing that we will have to look at 

is to try to, put some backstop provisions in, if in fact the ordinances are to change. Because we are designating this alive, in 

fact, you could just withdraw. You administratively extend it, you 

could administratively withdraw it because they have vitiated the 

basis for being a Wild and Scenic River. 

I don't know that we have examples of that. But since we are 

doing this in law and Connecticut has a special problem because 

they haven't set it up just yet, then we would have to actually put 

some ability. If we are going to designate, we have to provide the 

ultimate tools, as tough a tool as this particular one is. 

Mr. STEWART. That may be one of the solutions? For the State 

to do something to---

Mr. VENTO. Sure. Well, I think the State ought to do it. I think 

the local governments ought to do it. I think everyone else ought 

to do it except us. But in the event that they won't or can't or 

something, we have to spell that out in the report. That is all. That 

is what I am concerned about. 

Mr. STEWART. Our recourse, of course, when we deal with a Wild 

and Scenic River is, and we have the condemnation authority, is 
164 

to really get the money and be able to take some action, and under 

these times. I don't know if there is a situation we have actually 

done that in any of the rivers. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it is not. But I guess not having the 

authority, or having the authority makes the use of it less likely. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. That is the point in terms of planning. 

Congresswoman Johnson? 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, do you under the law have the 

right to de-designate if the land is out of compliance? 

Mr. VENTO. We would have to go through a whole action here, 

and I can imagine--

Mr. STEWART. No. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. We wouldn't. Okay. 

Mr. VENTO. If it is a local action that the local government didn't 

want to handle or the State government, then you are asking the 

committee and the Congress to handle local zoning. So you 

wouldn't even want me to do that, you know. I don't want to. It 

is bad enough. We get into enough different things in terms of designation, much less the negative. It is tough. 

This particular measure also has a couple of provisions related 

to hydroelectric facilities. I think you repeated in your statement 

that these did not give you any heartburn, Mr. Stewart. That is to 

say that they are outside the segment that is designated, is that 

correct? 

Mr. STEWART. That is correct. And the law provides, or the bill 

provides that the Colebrook Dam and the works that are there we 

would not be-the Act, if it is passed, would not affect the existing 

situation or relicensing. 

Also, a great deal of effort and money has gone into an in stream 

flow study of the river and any allocation of water from the river 

that might affect fisheries or anything else would be geared to that 

in-stream flow study and the amounts of water that could be taken 

from that. 

Mr. VENTO. So that is part of the plan? 

Mr. STEWART. That is right. 

Mr. VENTO. And who controls the allocation of water from the 

Farmington? Is that a State-regulated activity in this instance? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. The Hartford Metropolitan Water District has 

the control or has the water rights. 

Mr. VENTO. The water has all been appropriated or at least appropriated to the extent they have control over those segments that 

would be of most concern to us? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. There are State regulations which affect that. 

But it is quite a complicated system between the Hartford Water 

District and the State as to how--

Mr. VENTO. Again, well they would be expected to meet these. 

The major issue here is that we preclude any Federal permitting 

and so forth. That those protections remain in place under the designation. I expect that we wouldn't have a dewatering, or substantial dewatering of the river under the plan. 

In other words, it addresses that; whether or not the mechanism 

is clear or easily described is another matter. But it is between the 

State and the Hartford Water District. 
165 

Yes. I think we are talking here, the language in this bill on page 

8 only affects Federal agencies, but my question really goes to the 

plan. 

Mr. STEWART. In the plan there are standards for the quantity 

of water needed to maintain the protection and integrity of the 

river. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, perhaps in the report when we conclude work 

on the bill we can address that particular point in terms of the 

State exercising certain responsibilities. I don't expect that this is 

a problem. This is pretty much a developed area. We are not in the 

arid West here. We are up around 33 inches of rainfall a year, I 

guess, in Connecticut. 

Congresswoman Johnson, have I got it right? How many inches 

of rain fall a year in the Farmington area? 

Maybe a little higher than that, but certainly it would have more 

than Minnesota. Did you have the answer? 

Mr. STEWART. Forty-four. 

Mr. VENTO. I was very low. Well, it is surprising. A very wet 

area, 44 inches a year. 

Well, very good. Congresswoman Johnson, did you have any 

questions that you wanted to present to Mr. Stewart? 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to just 

thank the Park Service, Mr. Stewart, and particularly Phil 

Huffman, for his really outstanding work over these years. It has 

been rather a long and slow process, but the result has been that 

all of the people in the towns have learned an enormous amount. 

I think it is fair to say that the Department of Environmental 

Protection, the MDC, and the Farmington River Watershed Association all have learned an enormous amount, and Phil has been 

an invaluable ally. 

Sometimes we see in the legislation you bring before us those 

rather dry words about technical assistance, and they really bring 

forward very human resources that were invaluable to Connecticut. 

And the role that the Federal Government has played in this instance is really a perfect example of the kind of constructive partnership that makes progressive preservation possible. 

And we thank you, Mr. Stewart and Phil Huffman, for your leadership and your help and your assistance throughout these years. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the quality of the backing 

you have given to this process over these years, because it has been 

so fruitful. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. I appreciate the efforts and your 

thoughtful comments about the professional staff in the Park Service and our work on the committee. One of the questions that 

comes to me insofar as we enunciate and reference the plan in this 

particular legislation, how does that impact on modifications of a 

general management plan or any resource management plans that 

actually might be put into effect on the ground in the future? 

That plan sets out a framework, but then a general management 

plan to implement it will have to be put into effect? Or is it the 

general management plan? 

The concern is, I mean, normally general management plans are 

not in law and you can make exceptions to them and amendments 

to it, and in 10 years you can write essentially a rewrite of it. It 
166 

might substantially be the same. I don't want to imply that it 

would be. 

But shouldn't we make clear here somewhere that this plan can 

be amended, it can change, it doesn't affect the resource management plans on the ground? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, as long as it is done in cooperation and with 

the same people that agreed to the river management plan. We 

still must prepare the study report and submit the study report to 

the Congress. 

Mr. VENTO. We don't have that yet. 

Mr. STEWART. You don't have that yet. 

Mr. VENTO. I know. But that just sort of begs the question, Mr. 

Stewart, because I don't anticipate-if everyone agrees, then generally you don't have any problems. But from time to time there 

may be some disagreement even within the community about what 

the plan should be or how it might be modified, because we don't 

expect this plan that is developed in 1993 to foresee all the types 

of problems that might occur in the future. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, I think you are entirely correct that plans do 

change. They need to change over time, and how they are changed 

is dependent on the needs and the agreement of the people involved. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I agree. But I mean the problem is in terms 

of referencing this in the law I think we have got to recognize that 

sort of phenomenon. I don't know. 

As I said to you, my opening question was by continually referencing the plan, which apparently has to get up to us and be 

transmitted. I assume that it is a goods faith effort. I don't have 

any other agenda except that I know we amend plans. This is the 

general management plan, but we amend them, make exceptions to 

them. That is part of the dynamic process, and in 10 or 15 years 

there may be a major rewrite of it. Not everyone may agree with 

it. 

Mr. STEWART. One thing that is different about this study is that 

normally what we would do, we would send the study report to 

you. If Congress designated the river, then we would come back 

and do a comprehensive management plan for the river. 

In this case, the pertinent issues have been addressed directly 

because of the involvement of the towns in specifically how the sections of the river would be managed, and so that makes it a little 

different. 

Mr. VENTO. Staff points out that on page 15, this is the executive 

summary of it, that the coordinating committee conduct a thorough 

review of the management plan every 5 years. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. 

Mr. VENTO. Although the schedule may be altered as appropriate, whatever that means. Changes to this plan can only be 

made if they are approved by all the voting members in the Farmington Resource Coordinating Committee, or F -R, I guess it is resource, I don't know. Oh, river. I see. Farmington River. 

So anyway, that is at least the reference here. You may want to 

address that more substantively either in the legislation, I would 

think since we, you know, so we at least recognize it. 
167 

It is nice if you get 100 percent agreement of this particular 

group. We are going to be changing the bill. I think there is no 

question about it. We have to make some modifications in the type 

of coordinating committee or the statutory committee that you have 

set up. I don't know otherwise how we can pass muster in terms 

of the issues I have raised. And so I think that has to be borne in 

mind. 

Mr. STEWART. We will be happy to work with you on that. Mr. VENTO. In terms of how that relates to that particular provision. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. 

Mr. VENTO. So it is not, as you can see-once you modify one 

thing here you are into a couple of questions that are raised that 

need to be resolved. 

Mr. STEWART. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Stewart, for your 

work and that of the Park Service in bringing forth this matter 

along with the sponsor, Congresswoman Johnson. Thank you. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome the Honorable James 

Fleming, Connecticut State Senate; Ms. Patricia DeMarco, representing Governor Lowell Weicker; and Mr. George Sparks, the 

Metropolitan District Commission, Hartford, Connecticut. 

Your statements, Senator, Mr. Sparks, Ms. DeMarco, have been 

made a part of the record and you can summarize or read the portions that are most relevant. 

Senator? 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. JAMES T. FLEMING, SENATOR, 

EIGHTH DISTRICT, CONNECTICUT STATE SENATE; PATRICIA 

M. DeMARCO, SECRETARY, FARMINGTON WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVER STUDY COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF HON. LOWELL 

WEICKER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF CONNECTICUT; AND 

GEORGE H. SPARKS, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION (MDC), HARTFORD COUNTY,CT 

STATEMENT OF JAMES T. FLEMING 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, my name is Jim Fleming. I am a State Senator 

from the Eighth District, representing most of northwestern Connecticut, and I currently serve as the ranking member on the Environment Committee in the Connecticut General Assembly. 

I am here to testify in favor of House Resolution 2815 that would 

designate the Farmington River as a Wild and Scenic River. 

On the 29th of April of 1993, the Farmington River Wild and 

Scenic Study Committee, which I serve on as designee of the Secretary of the Interior, voted unanimously for protection under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It took us about 6 years. There was 

quite a bit of cooperation between the local, State and Federal officials, and I consider it to be one of the most significant environmental actions taken in Connecticut, certainly during my 14 years 

in the State legislature. 
168 

Because of the Study Committee's endorsement, the Fannington 

River will, if you-if Congress agrees, Mr. Chairman, be protected 

for future generations. Through passage of this bill, the river, 

which I think is one of the most beautiful and undisturbed watersheds in southern New England, is going to look like that for a long 

time to come. 

The five towns that are part of the study area in Connecticut, I 

represent all five of them. Those are Barkhamsted, Canton, 

Colebrook, Hartland, and New Hartford. They have already, as has 

been pointed out, put into effect local zoning ordinances to protect 

the river, and along with regional and State and Federal agencies 

have agreed on the management plan that would allow all of the 

different competing interests on this river to be properly protected. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, given the questions that you raised 

during the previous testimony, I think it is important to point out 

that and attached to the written material that I submitted is a 

copy of Connecticut Public Act 93-256, and amongst other things 

it concerns the designation of the Fannington River as a Wild and 

Scenic River. And I would direct the chairman to section 4 of the 

Act, and in particular 4(b) of the Act which provides that the Commissioner of Environmental Protection in Connecticut upon designation by Congress of this as a Wild and Scenic River is to submit legislation to the Joint Standing Committee on Environment 

concerning implementation of statutory changes in accordance with 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Thus there will be, if the Connecticut legislature agrees, statutory protection in Connecticut, a general statute, not just at the 

local level, to protect this river. I think, of course, it would depend 

upon the votes of the committee mem~rs, but, Mr. Chairman, 

being ranking member on that committee-and also I would point 

out that the chairperson, Representative Stratton from Canton, is 

very much interested in this legislation-! think there is a very 

high degree of probability that that protection would be put into 

Connecticut's statute. 

One other issue, if I might, is an issue that was raised about 

Connecticut and Massachusetts. And I know, Mr. Chairman, we 

are all from New England up there but there are some very big differences between people in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and 

one of them is that at least in those towns in northwest Connecticut, we are familiar with zoning laws and quite comfortable with 

them. That is not the case in western Massachusetts. In fact, they 

have been trying to secede from Boston for years. They are a very 

independent group up there. So there is a very, very big difference 

once you cross the border. 

We not only have zoning laws in that area, we have something 

called aquifer protection because we are so concerned about our 

drinking water supply that we have special State and local laws to 

protect what kind of development can occur over this aquifer. Because if we pollute our underground water supply, those 44 inches 

of rain that we get up there are going to be polluted and we are 

not going to be able to drink them. 

So I think there is a very big difference between Massachusetts 

and Connecticut. There is tremendous commitment on the part of 

those towns to see that this river is protected. And I would invite 
169 

you, Mr. Chainnan, in concluding my remarks, to come on up to 

northwest Connecticut. There are some terrific kayaking in that 

area. In fact, the regional tryouts for the United States Olympics 

are held there. And I would be more than happy to show you 

around the river, Mr. Chainnan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. · [Prepared statement of Mr. Fleming on H.R. 2815 follows:] 
SENATOR JAMES T. FLEMING 

EIGHTH DISTRICT 

1 SIMSCROFT PLACE 

SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT oeo70 

ENVIRONMENT COMMlTTEE: 240-0443 

HARTFORD: (2031 24CHIOO TOLL FREE: HIOG-842-1421 

170 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

SENATE 

STATE CAPITOL 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICLIT 06106-1591 

Connecticut State Senator James Fleming, R-Bth 

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on National 

and Public Lands 

Re: HR 2815 

Thursday, October 28, 1993 

RANKING lotEM8ER 

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 

PU8UC SAFETY COMMITTEE 

MEMBER 

EDUCATION COMMITTEE 

Parks, Forests 

CHAIRMAN VENTO AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, MY NAME IS JIM FLEMING 

AND I AM A CONNECTICUT STATE SENATOR FROM THE 8TH DISTRICT, 

REPRESENTING 13 TOWNS IN THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE STATE. IN 

ADDITION, I CURRENTLY SERVE AS RANKING MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT 

GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT. 

I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY TO TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF HOUSE 

RESOLUTION 2815, WHICH WOULD GIVE FEDERAL DESIGNATION TO THE 

FARMINGTON RIVER AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER. 

ON APRIL 29, 1993, THE FARMINGTON RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY 

COMMITTEE, OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE SECRETARY 

OF THE INTERIOR, VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO REQUEST PROTECTION OF THE 

FARMINGTON RIVER UNDER THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT. THAT ONE 

VOTE, AFTER FIVE YEARS OF STUDY BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL 

OFFICIALS, IS ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN DECADES IN CONNECTICUT. 

BECAUSE OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE'S ENDORSEMENT, THE FARMINGTON 

RIVER WILL, IF CONGRESS AGREES, BE PROTECTED FOR ALL FUTURE 

GENERATIONS. THROUGH PASSAGE OF THIS BILL, THE RIVER, WHICH IS 

STILL ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND UNDISTURBED WATERSHEDS IN 

SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND, WILL REMAIN SO. 
171 

FIVE TOWNS, IN PARTICULAR, THAT I REPRESENT IN CONNECTICUT - BARKHAMSTED, CANTON, COLEBROOK, HARTLAND AND NEW HARTFORD - ALREADY 

HAVE PUT INTO PLACE RIVER PROTECTION ZONES AND, ALONG WITH 

REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES, AGREED ON A MANAGEMENT PLAN 

THAT WILL ALLOW THE MANY COMPETING INTERESTS ON AND ALONG THE RIVER 

TO ENJOY AND PROPERLY UTILIZE THE RIVER WITH A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF 

DISTURBANCE. 

THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE IN CONNECTICUT THROUGH 

THE EFFORTS OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY COMMITTEE 

IN PRESERVING THE RIVER AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS HAS SOLIDIFIED 

COOPERATION BETWEEN STATE AGENCIES AND THE TOWNS THAT BORDER THB 

RIVER, AS WELL AS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN THB 

PROCESS. 

NOT ONLY IS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE RIVER WILL BE PROTECTED, 

BUT IT IS EQUALLY ASTONISHING THAT SO MANY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS, 

INCLUDING: CONNECTICUT'S METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, THE FARMINGTON 

RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION, THE FARMINGTON RIVER ANGLERS, THE 

UPPER RIVER TOWN GOVERNMENTS IN CONNECTICUT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - SOME 

OF WHOM HAVE BEEN AT TIMES BITTER ADVERSARIES REGARDING RIVER 

ISSUES, ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON THE RIVER'S WILD AND SCENIC 

DESIGNATION. 

IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK 

YOU, CHAIRMAN VENTO, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS FOR ALLOWING ME THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU AND TESTIFY ON THIS BILL. AND, I 

WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE TO EXTEND MY THANKS TO CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY 

JOHNSON FOR ALL OF HER EFFORTS AND SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE. 

FEDERAL DESIGNATION OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER AS A WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVER WILL LEAVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS THE GUARANTEE THAT 

THE FARMINGTON RIVER'S PRISTINE VISTAS AND OVERWHELMING BEAUTY WILL 

BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED, AND I URGE YOUR UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF 

THIS EFFORT. 

THANK YOU 
172 

Bouse Bill No. 6925 

PUBLIC ACT NO. 93-256 

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE 

FISHERIES COMMISSION, FREE FISHING, BUNTING AND 

TRAPPING LICENSES FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND PERSONS 

SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER, THE DESIGNATION 

OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

AND THE STATE GEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY 

SURVEY SALES AND PUBLICATION ACCOUNT. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Bouse of 

Representatives in General Assembly convened: 

Section 1. Section 26-300 of the general 

statutes is repealed and the following is 

substituted in lieu thereof: 

The [commission on intergovernmental 

cooperation] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION shall include in its budget the 

estimate of funds required by the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, shall account for and 

disburse funds appropriated to its use and shall 

include in its report a record of its activities. 

Sec. 2. Section 26-29b of the general statutes 

is repealed and the following is substituted in 

lieu thereof: 

[No fee shall be charged for any hunting or 

sport fishing license issued under this chapter to 

any person with paraplegia or the loss of the use 

of both lower extremities. Any nonresident with 

paraplegia or the loss of the use Of both lower 

extremities may procure such license without paym~nt of a fee if he is a resident of a state 

the laws of which allow the same privilege to 

residents of this state.) NO FEE SHALL BE CHARGED 

FOR ANY HUNTING, SPORT FISHING OR TRAPPING LICENSE 

ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO ANY PHYSICALLY 

DISABLED PERSON. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 

A "PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON" IS ANY PERSON WHOSE 

DISABILITY CONSISTS OF THE LOSS OF ONE OR MORE 

LIMBS OR THE PERMANENT LOSS OF THE USE OF ONE OR 

MORE LIMBS. A PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON SHALL 

SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSIONER A CERTIFICATION, SIGNED 

BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN, OF SUCH DISABILITY. NO 

FEE SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY HUNTING OR SPORT 

FISHING LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO ANY 

PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON . WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT 

OF THIS STATE IF SUCH PERSON IS A RESIDENT OF A 

STATE IN WHICH A PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON FROM 
173 

House Bill No. 6925 

CONNECTICUT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE FOR 

A HUNTING OR SPORT FISHING LICENSE. 

Sec. 3. Section 24-3 of the general statutes 

is repealed and the following is substituted in 

lieu thereof: 

(a) Said commissioner shall cause to be 

prepared a report to the general assembly before 

each regular session of the same in the 

odd-numbered years, showing the progress and 

condition of the survey, together with such other 

information as he deems useful or as the general assembly requires. The regular and special reports of the survey, with illustrations and maps, shall 

be [prepared for publication, and, when printed, 

the reports] PRODUCED FOR PUBLIC USE AND shall be 

distributed or sold by the commissioner as the 

iQterests of the state and of science may demand. 

(b) There is established a separate account 

within the general fund, to be known as the state 

geological and natural history survey sales and 

publication account, for the purpose of providing 

moneys for [the printing] PRODUCTION of [survey) ENVIRONMENTAL publications and purchase, for 

resale, of related [maps and reports) MATERIALS 

AND PRODUCTS. All moneys obtained from the sale of 

such publications, [maps and reports] MATERIALS 

AND PRODUCTS shall be paid to the state treasurer 

and credited to said account and the commissioner 

may expend moneys of said account for the [editing and printing] PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION of such 

publications and the purchase, for resale, of such 

[maps and reports. Any moneys in excess of thirty thousand dollars remaining in said account at the 

close of any fiscal year shall revert to the 

general fund] MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS. 

Sec. 4. (NEW) (a) It is declared to be the 

policy of the state of Connecticut that the 

portion of the Farmington River which is the 

subject of the authorized study by the Farmington Wild and Scenic River Study Committee for purposes of designation as a national wild and scenic 

rivers system be preserved as provided for in the 

federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 

90-542, as amended. 

(b) The commissioner of environmental 

protection shall cooperate with all relevant 

federal, state and local agencies to provide for 

such designation and to implement any management plan developed in accordance with the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. Upon the designation of the 

river segment by Congress, the commissioner shall 

-2-
174 

House Bill No. 6925 

notify the joint standing committee of the general 

assembly having cognizance of matters relating to 

the environment regarding any statutory changes 

necessary to implement the preservation and 

conservation of the river segment in accordance 

with the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 

commissioner shall cause a copy of this section to 

be delivered to all United States Representatives 

and Senators representing Connecticut in the 

Congress of the United States. 

Sec. 5. Section 26-28 of the general statutes 

is repealed and the following is substituted in 

lieu thereof: 

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 

fees for firearms hunting, archery hunting, 

trapping and sport fishing licenses or for the 

combination thereof shall be as follows: (1) 

Resident firearms hunting license, ten dollars; 

(2) resident fishing license, fifteen dollars; (3) 

resident combination license to firearms hunt and 

fish, twenty-one dollars; (4) resident trapping 

license, twenty dollars; (5) resident junior 

trapping license for persons under sixteen years 

of age, three dollars; (6) junior firearms hunting 

license, three dollars; (7) persons sixty-five 

years of age and over who have been residents of 

this state for not less than one year and who meet 

the requirements of subsection (b) of section 

26-31 may be issued [an annual] A LIFETIME license 

to firearms hunt or to fish or combinatjon license 

to fish and firearms hunt or a license to trap 

without fee; (8) nonresident firearms hunting 

license, forty-two dollars; (9) nonresident 

fishing license, twenty-five dollars; (10) 

nonresident fishing license for a period of three 

consecutive days, eight dollars; (11) nonresident 

combination license to firearms hunt and fish, 

fifty-five dollars, and (12) nonresident trapping 

license, two hundred dollars. The issuing agency 

shall indicate on a combination license the 

specific purpose for which such license is issued. 

The town clerk shall retain a recording fee of one 

dollar for each license issued by him. 

(b) Any nonresident residing in one of the New 

England states or the state of New York may 

procure a license to hunt or to fish or to hunt 

and fish for the same fee or fees as a resident of 

this state if he is a resident of a state the laws 

of which allow the same privilege to residents of 

this state. 

-3-
175 

Bouse Bill No. 6925 

Sec. 6. This act shall take effect July 1, 1993. 

Certifred os co"ect by 

Ugisllltiw Commissioner. 

Clerk of the Senole. 

Clerk of the House. 

Approved--------------- .1993. 

Governor, State of Connecticut. 

-4-
176 

Mr. VENTO. That is a little out of my league, but the fish census 

work would be all right. 

Mr. FLEMING. The fishing is terrific. 

Mr. VENTO. I went to Connecticut, incidentally, on the Shetucket 

and Quinebaug earlier this year with Congressman Gejdenson in 

something more tame--a canoe. 

Ms. DeMarco, would you proceed with your statement, please? 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DeMARCO 

Ms. DEMARco. Yes. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

testify to you today on behalf of the Governor of the State of Connecticut. I urge the support of this legislation for the designation 

of the Farmington River as a Wild and Scenic and recreational 

river. 

We have had a number of resources-! am going to summarize 

this in the interest of having more time for discussion. I think it 

is important to note that we have had a considerable amount of 

professional staff resources both from the Department of Environment81 Protection, and also funding and professional staffer support from the Metropolitan District Commission, and thousands of 

hours of volunteer time from the Farmington River Watershed Association, and many of the citizens in the communities abutting 

this river involved in the development of this study continuously 

over a very long period of time. 

I think this is a highly important part of the consensus that we 

were able to reach on this river, because we had to spend a lot of 

time resolving long-term conflicts, and we used the process of the 

in-stream flow study to put into a basis of science issues that could 

not be resolved any other way, and we found that there is enough 

water for all the uses, both drinking water, recreational, and also 

community supply that made some of the management issues very 

important to address and also opened the door for resolution in a 

consensus manner. 

We had-as secretary of the committee, I don't think I recorded 

more than one or two divided votes in the whole time. We really 

worked at things until we had a consensus, and it was that process 

that we codified into the plan that was recommended to you as a 

management plan. 

Over a period of 6 years, we have hammered out a procedure for 

having all the interests represented, having their concerns shorn of 

rhetoric and addressed in principle, so that you could come up with 

a harmonious and workable solution. We feel confident that this 

process that we have tested over 6 years will in fact work as part 

of the Farmington River Coordinating Commission when it is established as part of the designation process. 

We have provided for the updating of the plan, and we are not 

expecting that this commission will meet once every 235 years, but 

that it will continue to monitor events in all of the towns on a continuous basis. 

The division of jurisdictions between the National Park Service, 

the State Department of Environmental Protection, the Metropolitan District Commission in terms of water management have been 

very well honed and defined so that we feel we will have a better 
177 

process of resource management than could have been developed 

unilaterally by any single agent. 

We recommend very strongly that this unique scenic river and 

recreational river in Connecticut be designated a part of the national system. We feel it is a jewel and a treasure of our State and 

we would like to put it on the national agenda. 

I thank you so much for your attention. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Ms. DeMarco. We will get back with a 

few questions in a moment. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeMarco follows:] 
178 

TISTIMONYTOTHEHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

October 28, 1993 

My name is Patricia M. DeMarco, designee of the 

Governor of the State of Connecticut to the Farmington 

River Wild and Scenic Study Committee. I am the Secretary 

of the Committee. 

Governor Lowell Weicker supports the designation of 

the West Branch of the Farmington River as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. The state 

Department of Environmental Protection has contributed 

significant staff time and resources to the success of this 

effort over the last four years. In the administration of its 

authority as custodian of the State's natural resources, the 

Department of Environmental Protection will play a 

significant role in the Management Plan recommended as 

part of this study. The State has in place all necessary 

legislative authority to implement this Plan with balanced 

provisions for fisheries, recreational uses and water supply 

issues. The designation of the West Branch of the 

Farmington River as part of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System will enhance the capabilities of the State. 

Upon the recommendation of the study committee, 

during this study, the State has purchased, at market price, 

two significant parcels of land which have been added to the 

State Park lands. The process of developing a protection and 

management plan for this River will become a model for the 

protection and management of other scenic rivers in 

Connecticut. 

This committee of seventeen people, drawn from eight 

towns and two states, has struggled with serious issues of 
179 

private land and public watershed that have significance far 

beyond the Farmington River. The process of building 

consensus among disparate parties required diligent and 

patient work on the part of all participants. Through the 

study process, issues were identified, shorn of rhetoric, 

sharpened and addressed systematically. We identified 

options and hammered out compromises where necessary 

until there was a balanced approach. We provided for the 

long term updating and revision of the plan within the 

parameters of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The willingness of all parties to hear each other out 

with a fresh perspective allowed respect to replace rancor. 

The participants brought the same level of energy to the 

search for a solution as had characterized the previous 

antagonism. The result is a Management Plan for the long 

·term maintenance of the unique features of this river, in 

advance of designation by Congress. 

This result would not have been possible without the 

material contribution of funds, professional support and 

resources from the project participants, especially the 

Metropolitan District Commission and the Department of 

Environmental Protection. The augmentation of National 

Park Service funds and personnel from these two sources 

allowed a broader scope for the in-stream flow study. The 

participation of all interested parties in the development, 

monitoring and interpretation of this study contributed to 

its credibility. The participants and staff of the Farmington 

River Watershed Association were particularly diligent in 

wading through the complexities of hydrological data and 

flow studies. Their members participated in gathering the 

data used to define the recreational resources under 

specific flow conditions. Everyone believed the results were 

fair, unbiased and soundly based in science. 

The study took many months, and effectively 

remanded the most controversial issues of water supply 
180 

and water resource adequacy to a working staff group and 

a broad Advisory Panel of Experts representing all 

interested parties. The study period was punctuated by 

complicated technical reports from the working group to the 

full committee at public meetings. The data on the 

hydrology and flow regimens presented at meetings that 

stretched beyond 10:00 PM convinced the Committee 

members that the staff was doing a superlative job, and 

should continue unhindered by politics. 

In the meantime, the committee focussed on issues of 

land use management, public information and the division 

of local, state and federal jurisdictions separately from 

water supply issues. With the water resources issues off 

the table temporarily, with assurances that they would be 

fairly addressed when the data were all finished, the group 

was able to move away from pre-conceived positions and 

focus on resolution of real problems. We spent many hours 

listening to the fears and concerns of the citizens of the 

towns. We listed many pages of issues that were sorted, 

analyzed and distilled into the sections of the Management 

Plan. We debated the issue of how to define the quality of 

recreational experience for different users of the River. 

The participants defined specific roles and assumed 

specific responsibilities for the shared maintenance of the 

River. We ratified our recommendations through several 

rounds of public hearings. The consensus process gained 

the equivalent of ten thousand watchdogs over the care of 

the river. The joint flow management regimen of the 

Metropolitan District Commission in cooperation with the 

Department of Environmental Protection yields a better 

quality of river resource use than would be possible by any 

unilateral plan of action from the federal level. Everybody 

has bought into this Management Plan in advance of 

designation. It will work. Such a cooperative approach 

would not have been possible through the unilateral 

planning and taking of land by the National Park Service. 
181 

We have sorely tested the patience of the National Park 

Service staff during this process. However, the result is a 

community dedication to the preservation of this River that 

grows from a deepened understanding of its value as a 

nationally significant resource. There is a commitment. to 

common purpose by former adversaries which could never 

have been mandated through a plan developed at the 

federal level for comment at the local level. By comparison, 

the result of this consensus process is like the difference 

between tempered steel and forged iron. 

On behalf of the Governor of the State of Connecticut, I 

urge your support of the Farmington River Wild and Scenic 

River Act. The unique scenic and recreational values of this 

River enjoy the deepest commitment of the towns on its 

borders, and the state through which it passes. We 

embrace the responsibility to be its custodian forever 

under the provisions of the well balanced and carefully 

crafted Management Plan which has been submitted to you 

in support of this legislation. 
182 

Mr. VENTO. But finally, we will hear from George Sparks, Director of Operations, Metropolitan District Commission. Mr. Sparks? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE SPARKS 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for this opportunity to offer testimony for the Metropolitan District Commission, Hartford County, Connecticut, in support of H.R. 

2815. 

My name is George Sparks, I am Director of Operations of the 

Metropolitan District in Hartford County, Connecticut. It is most 

commonly known as the MDC in that part of the country. 

MDC is a municipal corporation established by the special Act of 

the Connecticut General Assembly, and we provide drinking water 

and other services to approximately 400,000 people in the Greater 

Hartford area. 

The MDC has been a member and is a member of the Farmington River Study Committee and has actively participated in the 

studies and deliberations which have culminated in the legislation 

now before you. The MDC supports designation of the segment of 

the Farmington River in Connecticut as a Wild and Scenic River. Because the quantity and quality of the water in the West 

Branch of the Farmington River, the MDC has long regarded this 

segment of the river as a potential future source of drinking water. 

In fact, the West Branch of the Farmington River is included as a 

potential water supply source in the MDC's Strategic Water Supply 

Plan, and this plan has been approved by the relevant regulatory 

agencies in Connecticut. The MDC could therefore only support 

designation if inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System would not preclude potential future withdrawal from the 

Farmington River for water supply purposes. 

In order to determine whether there were sufficient water in the 

river to support both recreational and fishery values on the one 

hand and public water supply on the other, the Study Committee 

authorized that an in-stream flow study be conducted. The instream flow study, which was jointly funded by the National Park 

Service and the MDC, was a comprehensive evaluation of the quantity of water available in the river during various times of the year 

and the water needs of the various users. The in-stream flow study 

concluded that with proper flow management there were sufficient 

quantities of water to support all the resource uses, including 

water supply. 

The in-stream flow study was crucial to the success of the Wild 

and Scenic study process in Connecticut. By using empirical data 

and good science, the diverse groups which comprise the Study 

Committee were able to overcome the differences which had historically defined their relationship. Designation will enhance the quality of the water in the Farmington River and ensure that an adequate supply of drinking water 

is available. Designation will also protect the remarkable recreational, fisheries and aesthetic resources of the river which are 

enjoyed by so many Connecticut residents and by visitors from 

other areas. 
183 

The MDC also applauds the efforts of all the participants in the 

study process. That these diverse groups could work together in a 

spirit of cooperation speaks well for the future management of one 

of Connecticut's most precious resources. The MDC supports House 

Resolution 2815 and we urge its adoption. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sparks on H.R. 2815 follows:] 
184 

I 

UNITED STATES CONGRESS 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

TESTIMONY OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION OF 

HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2815, •A 

BILL TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE FARMINGTON RIVER IN 

CONNECTICUT AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM• 

My name Is George H. Sparks and I am the Director of Operations of the 

Metropolitan District Commission of Hartford County, Connecticut (•Moe·). The 

MDC is a municipal corporation established by special act of the Connecticut General 

Assembly. and provides drinking water and other services to approximately 400,000 

people In the Greater Hartford area. 

The MDC Is a member of the Farmington River Study Committee and has 

actively participated In the studies and deliberations which have culminated In the 

legislation now before you. The MDC supports designation of the segment of the 

Farmington River In Connecticut as a Wild and Scenic River. 

Because of the quantity and quality of water in the West Branch of the 

Farmington River, the MDC has long regarded this segment of the River as a potential 

future source of drinking water. In fact, the West Branch of the Farmington River Is 

Included as a potential water supply source In the MDC's strategic water supply plan, 

which plan has been approved by the relevant regulatory agencies In Connecticut. 

The MDC could therefore only support designation If Inclusion In the national wild and 

scenic rivers system would not preclude a potential future withdrawal from the 

Farmington River for water supply purposes. 

In order to determine whether there was sufficient water In the River to support 

both recreational and fisheries values, on the one hand, and public water supply, on 

the other, the Study Committee authorized that an In-Stream Flow Study be 

conducted. The In-Stream Flow Study, which was jointly funded by the National Park 

Service and the MDC, was a comprehensive evaluation of the quantity of water 

available In the River during various times of the year and the water needs of various 

users. The In-Stream Flow Study concluded that, with proper flow management, 

there were sufficient quantities of water to support all the resource uses, Including 

water supply. 
1H5 

The In-Stream Row Study was crucial to the success of the Wild and Scenic 

study process In Connecticut. By using empirical date and good science, the diverse 

groups which comprised the Study Committee were able to overcome the differences 

which had historically defined their relationships. 

Designation will enhance the quality of the water of the Farmington River to 

ensure that an adequate supply of drinking water Is available. Designation will also 

protect the remarkable recreational, fisheries and aesthetic resources of the River. 

which are enjoyed by so many Connecticut residents and by visitors from other areas. 

The MDC applauds the efforts of all the participants of the study process. That 

these diverse groups could work In a spirit of cooperation speaks well for the future 

management of one of Connecticut's most precious resources. 

The MDC supports H.R. 2815 and urges its adoption. 
186 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Sparks for your testimony. 

Let me first ask, in interest of continuity, you are satisfied with 

the plan and its policy objectives and goals with regard to its treatment of water; is that correct? 

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, we are. We worked very hard and very actively 

with the committee and members of the staff from the DEP, from 

the National Park Service and the Farmington Watershed Association, and we are comfortable that we have hammered out a good 

plan. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have an appropriation of water at the State 

level in Connecticut? Is this river appropriated as such by the 

State? 

Mr. SPARKS. The State has--

Mr. VENTO. I guess you know what I am talking about. 

Mr. SPARKS. Well, the State has a law on the books. It is a diversion law, and it, requires that if we were to ever need water from 

the West Branch that we would have to apply to the DEP for 

water, and we have to satisfy all the requirements of the diversion 

law. We would also have to satisfy all the requirements that are 

in the management plan. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that sort of answers my next question. 

It is, that you take your water from the aquifer? 

Mr. SPARKS. No, we take our water, surface water. We have--

Mr. VENTO. You do take it directly from the river? 

Mr. SPARKS. Yes. We take-all of our water right now is from 

other areas of the Farmington River that are not part of what is 

being currently considered for designation. 

Mr. VENTO. So your plans ahead are not to take water from this 

river? 

Mr. SPARKS. Our plan includes the West Branch as a potential 

future source of water. 

Mr. VENTO. Consistent with whatever is in the plan. So you 

would apply to the State. 

Mr. SPARKS. Exactly. 

Mr. VENTO. So you use basically surface water. You don't use any 

groundwater for the jurisdiction that you are serving. 

Mr. SPARKS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Do you have pretty good aquifers with a lot 

of the water in them in Connecticut as well? 

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, we do. 

Mr. VENTO. You mentioned, the State Senator mentioned the 

aquifers. 

Senator Fleming, in terms of the legislation you referenced to 

me, this was written when? This particular measure, your House 

Bill Number 6925? 

Mr. FLEMING. This was passed. It is now law in Connecticut. It 

was passed this year. 

Mr. VENTO. Oh, this year? 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is that this is just a recognition that if 

Congress acts then you will act on this particular matter, so that 

you will affirm and provide the proper State authorities to in fact 

implement the legislation. Is that correct? 

Mr. FLEMING. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 
187 

Mr. VENTO. Looks like it does a little more than that. It sets in 

motion a whole Wild and Scenic, provisions that could be applicable 

to other rivers in Connecticut. 

Mr. FLEMING. Connecticut in addition to this is considering, and 

I think it will most likely pass, but an entire rivers program for 

all of the rivers in Connecticut. And, as a matter of fact, the work 

that was done by the Study Committee on the Farmington, much 

of that work is going to be incorporated into that legislation as 

well. 

Mr. VENTO. The Governor in most States where we have Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, very often the legislature and Governor have 

structured State laws to give the Governor administrative designation. Would that be part of your package of legislation in Connecticut as well? 

Ms. DEMARco. That is already within the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay, so you have that authority, although it has not 

been exercised. 

Ms. DEMARco. Not in terms of designating Wild and Scenic, but 

there is a river management system, a river management plan. 

Mr. VENTO. State? 

Ms. DEMARco. In the State. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Oh, so the State. So you don't have any national. You 

didn't use it to designate them as national, but you have designated them essentially as State. 

Ms. DEMARco. Right, and we have focused attention on various 

river corridors as, you know, nondegradation areas. We have a 

nondegradation water policy in the State which would apply to this 

river, which is a Class A watershed area in the first place, which 

is the highest standard, and there is a considerable program in motion already for that all through the State. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Ms. DeMarco, I couldn't help but envy the discussions that you had with the committee where you were able to 

resolve everything in an amiable way. 

Ms. DEMARco. Sir, we have the luxury on this committee in the 

designees that were appointed by the various towns and by-both 

in Massachusetts and Connecticut and by the Governor and the 

Department of the Interior of having a number of people such as 

our chairman, Mr. Rogers, and such as Jim, who are very skilled 

in mediation and negotiation on controversial issues. And I think 

it was largely the management of the agenda, the skillful use of remanding controversial issues to committee and technical staff that 

allowed us to make so much progress on these issues. 

I think there was a tremendous amount of education that went 

on both one to one and also in public groups. I mean we had numbers and numbers of hearings. Often our meetings were attended 

by throngs of people and they went on until late in the night because people have a great deal of commitment and concern about 

this river. It is something that people feel very deeply about. 

So I think over the period, the long period of time we have had 

there has been a growth and a change in the institutional position 

of people like the MDC and people like the Farmington River Watershed Association that has really allowed them all to grow in a 
188 

new direction, and I think that that has been a chief value of this 

Wild and Scenic study process. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the things we haven't asked about is what is 

the type of development? We know most of this is private land 

here, but it hasn't been characterized. It is towns, so I expect that 

it is sort of residential. Are there mill towns? 

Ms. DEMARco. I would like to defer that to Mr. Rogers who 

speaks as chairman from the one of the towns himself because I 

think his perspective would be better for you. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Well that is fine. I think he will be testifying. 

Ms. DEMARco. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I just think that that has not been the case because 

we may have farmland. You may have other things that are in 

here. But I think it is important for me and for the committee for 

the record to show the nature of the type of development on the 

river. Ms. DeMarco, did you have any, or Senator Fleming, did you 

have any comments about my observations with regards to some of 

the difficulties we have to address before we act on the bill; that 

is to say, the issue of the committee and how that can be structured and the dynamic of the plan? 

You anticipate it is going to change yourselves. So I am pleased 

to note that. But we need to have some sort of a national role in 

terms of that plan. Generally what happens with most of these plans, I would suggest one solution might be for the plan to be developed and the Secretary has to affirm the modifications, and it goes back to the community. That is generally the way we would probably deal with 

this, and that gives him sort of the last word. I don't anticipate problems with it. Ms. DEMARco. We didn't want to anticipate how the Congress would act on it. We did spend a lot of time putting the management plan together based on our experience of what works in this 

community and this type of a river. 

We are trying to acknowledge the need to represent on an equal basis all of the interests that are involved and a need to have the 

jurisdictions that are represented have appropriate roles. Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond as well? I don't 

think, having listened to what was said this morning, that there 

is any issue that I heard raised that couldn't be worked out. Mr. VENTO. Well, that is spoken like a true legislator. [Laughter]. 

Well, Mr. Fleming, I appreciate that. I just wanted to, try to 

glean your wisdom in terms of having to work this out now that 

we have got the problem squarely resting on the table in front of 

us as the committee members and as the sponsor and so forth. 

There are some provisions in here the staff points out to me that 

it would take-for instance, if you had one Park Service person on, 

that one Park Service person could veto the whole plan. But on the 

other concern, but it still maybe doesn't resolve everything. I think 

that that is an interesting provision, but I don't know that the Justice Department would hang its hat solely on that. I would be concerned about it. 

Anyway, so I understand the problem. You had discussed this, 

and I thought if you could provide me guidance or any observations 
189 

at this point it would be appropriate. I didn't want you to miss the 

opportunity to do so. 

Ms. DEMARco. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. In any case, you have brought it along fairly well, 

and as long as they get a lot of interest, development along this 

particular segment, 400,000 people being served by the water in 

the area. 

Congresswoman Johnson, did you want to ask any questions of 

this panel or comment? 

Mrs. JOHNSON. I would just like to thank them for their good 

work. And I gm very pleased that in your testimony you brought 

to the committee the significance of the process because in this instance the State couldn't have mobilized that process. 

And it is another good example of the Federal role, being able to 

provide resources and also provide leadership and focus that enables communities to get people working together in a way that 

otherwise would be impossible, but in the end was extraordinarily 

fruitful for us. 

And I thank Jim Fleming for his leadership on the State Environment Committee, making sure that always our interests were 

backstopped by their action. And I agree with him that there is no 

question in my mind but the Environment Committee will move 

forward with the Governor's office and pass the appropriate legislation. 

And the MDC also has done a remarkable job working with this 

group, and I thank them for making this possible today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you all for your participation and presence 

this morning, Senator, Ms. DeMarco, Mr. Sparks. 

Finally, the last panel today is Beth Norcross, an expert on river 

issues with the American Rivers, Inc., and Nathan Frohling, the 

Farmington River Watershed Association, and Norman Rogers, Jr., 

the Farmington River Advisory Committee. 

Thank you all for being present. 

I have a statement here that Congressman Richardson provided 

me from a group in Taos, Amigos Bravos, which he asks, without 

objection, be placed in the record. 

[Prepared statement of Amigos Bravos follows:] 

76-068 - 94 - 7 
190 

Amlgos Bravos, Friends of the WUd River& 

P.O. Box 238 Taos, Hew Mexico 87671 

505-7 58-38 7 4 

Stotement Prapored for the US House of Represent11tivas hearings on H.R. 

1471, the "Rto Grende Rtver oestgnetton Act of 1993", before the Netlonol 

Porks, Forests ond Public Land$ Subcommittee to be held October 21, i 993 

INTRODUCTION: 

Amlgos BrDI/OS Is 0 not for profit gross-roots membership organization 

estebllshed tn 19BB ond dedtcoted to the protection of on rivers wtthfn 

the upper Rio Grande watershed. The mission .of Amtgos Brovos Is to 

protect, conserve and Improve the blologtcol dtverstty end lmportont 

oque~tic, wfldllfe e~nd culturol resources cif the upper Rio Gronde 

watershed. Amfgos Bravos Is committed to preventing the destruction of 

lhe threotened ond endongere~ specie$ of floro and fl!una, wlld11fe hobHilt, 

o.lr end woter quollty of the watershed while molntelnlng environmentally 

sound, suste~inoble trodltionel ways of 11fe of the lndtgenous.cultures. 

Amlgos Bravos upholds thot environmental .Justice e.nd soclel JUStiCe go 

hond In hend. · · · 

Aml.gos BroYos would like to thonk Congressmen BHI Rlchordson for his 

exemplery Interest In protecting New Mexico's rtvers. We ore very 

eupportfye Of leglsletiYe lnftletfYeS lhet W111 protect OUr YISlUeble arid 

threetened ne~tural river re;ources. We takllll .l~ Interest In those 

actions which c1iri nisult .in protect lYe ilestgnetlon undl!r tb'e wnd ond · 

Scenic Rivers Act. This section of river W!lS first recommended for 

1ncius1on In the Wlid end scenic Rivers Act by the Rio Gnmde .del Norte 

National Conservation Area CommltlQe appointed by Congressmen Btll 

Rlch!lrdson In 1 gg 1. · 

we support this btll as It now stands. How11ver, we !lSk that the Bure.!lu of 

· Land Management Taos Resource Area Off1 ce tui pro vi deQ wt tti the 

necess11ry resources, manpower and direction t.o adequli:tel~:~address 'the 

ISSIJeS outlined below. 

THE NEED FOR PROTECTIVE DESIGNATION WITH SUBSTANCE: 

The mendete of the Wtld ond Scenic Rivers Act Is Yliry cle11r. 

Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land M!lnegement (BLM), which ts the 
191 

Amlgos Bravos Comments on HR 1471, P11ge 2 

managing ogency for the section of river In que9t1on, hes historically not 

lived up to thet mendete. 

The drfvtng force behfn~ the birth of Amlgos Bravos was a perception 

among the local populollon tnet although the Rio Gran!le from the Colorado 

border south to Taos Junction Bridge wes protected under the Wild end 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1966, BLM monegement of thfs section wes 

tnodequote to the point of being detrimental to the resources Congre$s hod 

designated ror protection. Re11sons for BLH's 1nob111ty to nionege the eree 

responslbl!j renge from bud_get shortfolls to bureeucrettc overburdens, end 

leek or 1.n-the-f1eld specialists. Most devostotlng, however, to the . 

culture! and envlronmentef ecology of the oreo has been e. BLM egende 

Which fevors eggresslvedevelopment of high-profile actfvttles, InClUding 

the construction or unnecessery, undesirable "facilities· end lefssez-rotre 

mimegement of recreation. These rectors are well documented In the 

August 24, .1990 Congresstonel Oversight Field Hearings by uui Committee 

on Interior end Insular Affotrs on "Rio Grende Wild ilnd scenic River 

Management PoTfcfes of the Bureeu or Lend Mcnegement·. 

Hfnimel Improvements fn monogement of public lend and weter heYe 

resulted from those hearings. It follows that protective leglslotlon .of the 

upper Rio Grende must Include substantive jlirecttves backed IIY flnencfol 

support, end continuing opportunities ror the edvtce end Input from local 

aftected communities. Ottierwfse the proposed leglslotfon wm become 

another piece of pcper to either be ignored or "Interpreted" ad Infinitum, 

while the resource continues to be degraded. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE .AREA IN QUESTION: 

The upper Rfo Gn1nde bforegfon Is globally recognized for Its culture! 

diversity and history. The northern New Mexico wiltershed creates a home 

to extrc.ordtnory wildlife populations, complex s~:~stems of vegetetlon, ond 

spectacuior landscapes. Rich ·In orcheeologtcc.l remains, the canyons ond 

valleys of the Rio Grande hove supported Pueblo Cultures since the tfme of 

the Anasozf thousands of ~:~ec.rs ego end ht~ve been the home or Spanf sh 

specking peoples since the 16th century. Perheps most lmporte~nt of ell fs 

fl sense tl:lot the land itself hi ven.~ much 11tfve _end that the river Is at Its 

heert. 

The twelve miles of rtver thet this leglsletfon addresses hes, unt11 very 

recently; been 11 quiet pestorol, scenic valley offering a unique opportunity 
192 

Amlgos Brovos Comments on HR 1471, Poge 3 

for contemplation end solitude, fn 'i'fhlch .centunes-old sustainable fishing 

and ogrorlon precllces continue: The rurol community of f'flar, compr1sed 

of formers ond ortlsens, lies In the middle of thfs section of river. The 

major highway connecting Santo F,e end Albuquerque to Taos end points 

north In Colorado perf!llels the east bonk of .the river for hol.f of ~he 

designated distance. The fermlng communities of Rlnconade and Embudo 

ere clu;tered along the banks of the river Just south of the Taos/Rio 

Arriba County Line where, the protection resulting from tlils proposed 

daslgnotlon ends. · · 

The communities sltueted elong the nverhave !n the .Past been_ilble to 

molnteln end, to a large degree, enhance the "Scenic~ .Quollties and 

resources of this volley. · · · · 

IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE AREA: 

In recent years this oree .hes been ~discovered~ by tourists imd 

recreotloneltsts due to en eggresslve campolgn on the port of .commercii!! 

and medic lnter!,lsta. Host of the large national newspepars.and inany 

stick International megczlnes hove featured the Rio Grande Gorge os e 

place to see when vlsl.tlng Northern New Mexico which Is becoming en 

Increasingly populor tourist destination. · · 

Consequently the erec Is being "loved to death". The wildlife en~ social 

.fabric o.f the area Is fre.Qmentlng, "Scenic" values are threetened, end 

concerns ot the loco! population ore Ignored while BLM co.ritln.ues to 

emphasize recreot~ on· over resource protection. · 

Instead of managing th.e erea for Its Intrinsic values, BLN management has 

ell owed this once peoceful volley to evolve Into a soclel playground 

accompanied by many of the more unpleasant side ef.fects of our present 

"modern culture". 'In c Stele thet has no bottle or cen rel.mbursement . 

legislation, and where fest food throw-away pockeglrig end' dlspo~eble 

diapers are prevale.nt. we see e tremendous accumulelfon oftr~sh along 

the banks end sp1111ng Into the river. An estimated three million people 

visit Taos annually. Most of the~e visitors come to Teoi olong Highway 6B 

which parallels the stretch or river In question, Rl.,.er-rurinlng has 

tncreosed by 50 ~ In the pest three years. Commei"clcl booting elone 

Increased b!:j 44~ tn the past year. 

Amlgos Bravos volunteers pick up garbage monthly end we also pay for the 
193 

Amigos Bravos Comments on HR 1 .ol71, Page 4 

rental and maintenance of numerous toilets. In order to alleviate some of 

ths so11d waste problems left by visitors end people local to the area, 

alike. However we ereuneble to keep up with the situation ll!'ld BLM Is not 

providing the necessary trash collection end manpower to Insure a clean 

end sofa .environment. The effects are such thot trash Is piling up along 

the beni<s, the fecel colt form count In the water Is up, end the quiet of the 

· velleyls drowned out by tourists end boaters oriiving In unchecked 

numbers, uneducated as to how they might ·walk softly" through en 

environmentally and culturally sensitive area. 

Optimally, a monoge.merit plon couid lntegrete recreotlon with the _natural 

eurrot,mdlngs, to everyone's benefit. But, BLH's primary response has been 

directed at facilitating on Increase In the nurnber of vlslt~;~rs without 

eddresslng trash, traffic and safety ~roblams. Such neg11gence h!IS 

resulted In on almost unonlmous uproar against recreation by the iond 

.owners In the effected communities. 

MANDATE FOR EFFECT lYE MANAGEMENT: 

On May 12, 1992, Amlgos Bravos President Henk Saxe flew to Washington 

DC to testified regarding this Act before the PubHc Lands. National Parks 

arid Forests Subcornmitt•e of the US Senate Committee on Energy ene! 

Natural Resources. At thet time we made the following four requests: 

. 1. Classify the proposed section of river os ·scenic" . . 

2. ProYide the necessary resources so that BLM can Implement 

1ntens1Ye menogernent prectlces. 

3. ~end a c:)elir message to BLM that ~he new management ple~ must 

·address the needs of the locel population by creating a Citizens 

OYerslght Review Board . 

.4 . . Designate the section of river which runs from the County Line to 

Velarde as a ·study River" pursuent to section 5 of the W.lld ond 

Scenic Rivers Act. · 

We were. very pleased thet the US Senate rewrote the Act to reflect our 

concerns 11nd pess~d Senate B111 S. 375. . 

The only recommendation .that was not addressed by 5. 375 Is •2 which 

calls ;or providing the resources so that BLM can lmplementlntenslv.e 

management practices. Without additional resources BLM will il(!t be oble 

to control the tnflui< o( tourists end recreatlonellsts which will result In 

the further degradation of the resources and quality of 11fe of the _eree. 
194 

Ami gos Bravos Comments on HR 1471, Page 5 

We esk that this committee address this Issue either through this Bill or 

by way of some other special eppropriatton. · 

The new management plan must address the needs of the local population 

(see Attachment A: Recommendgtfons of Steering CommUtes Concerned 

Citizens gf the Lower Rio Grande). This can best be done by assuring that· 

the composition of the Rio Grenda Citizens Review Boerd retain 11 high 

percentage or representation from the affected land owners. 

Section 4 (a) mandotes thot BLM estobllsh the Rio Grenda Citizens 

oversight Review Boord to oversee preparetfon or a new management plen 

and Its 1mplementotfon. It Is of utmost Importance that this Board have 

strong representation from the local lend owners whose properties will be 

affected by this legislation. It has been brought to our attention that BLM 

would like to see the composition or the Board hove a broader 

representation of Interests thon Is presently mandated by Section 4 (b). 

We understood the need to Include all interested parties II] preparing 11 

management plen, however we feel thet this cen be done through the 

requirements of the Netfonel Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 

Section 4 (b) was Intended to provide protection for .the l11nd owners end 

direct stake holders along the river. The composition of the Rio Grande 

Citizens oversight Review Bo11rd as outlined In Section 4 (b) was not 

Intended to Include commerclelfnterests who have a stake In exploiting' 

the cultural and aesthetic resources of the er'ea. If the composition of the 

"card under Section 4 (b) Is to be expended It should do so In order to 

11ltow for representation from T11os and Picuris Pueblos. These Pueblos 

neve hlld spsclel Interest end jurisdiction tn.thts cenyon for marly 

centuries. There could elso be two positions on the Board av11f111ble to 

ritcre11t1onal Interests, one for boaters ond one for fishermen. These 

poetttons, however, should be f111ed by 1oc111 residents who cen ot the 

some ttme represent orid be accountable to these reereotfonal Interests. 

Finally. Amtgos Bravos would like to go on record tri 'support of BLM's 

proposal to withdraw. the. entire Racecourse Mea of Critical 

Environmental Concern from mineral entry. 

Thenk you for taking our concerns Into constderetton. 
195 

RECOMMENDATIONS 01' STEERING CO!VlMITTEE 

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF TilE LOWER IUO 

GRANDE (CCLRG) 

The following recommendations are · derived from 

Issues identified ' and concerns expressed by local 

res.idents wlto attended a series of community meetings 

conducted by our grass-roots organization. 

OVERVIEW: 

Residents of the villages along the Rio Grande from Pilar to 

Velarde are understandably concerned about the content of the 

BLM's proposed "management plan" tor the lower Rio Grande 

area because we, as the people who live and work here, will be 

most affected by these plans. Accordingly, we favor a plan 

which places primary emphasis .on the protection and 

preservation of "the environment and the rich cultural and 

historical legacy of our rural, farming communities. Only 

secondarily should the plan seek to accommodate the desires of 

tllose. who come here looking for additional leisure-time 

activities. We do not wish to become a "living museum" for 

toudsts and the recreation industry. Communities should be 

maintained Viable, Vibrant, alive, Vivas; not exploited by . 

tourism and recreation. Toward this end, we make the .fbi/owing 

specific recommendations : 

Local Representation: Residents of the comrqunities along the Rio 

Grande from Pilar to Velarde demand to be represented by the person, or 

persons, of our choice at any and ell phases of the preparation of the 

•Management Plan" for our area. 

Boating: 

1. Commercial boating should be cappod al 1991 levels. 

2. The commercial boating season should be restricted to high-Dow 
196 

days. 

· 3. Boaters must tie educated In boaUng courtesy; they mU&t learn to 

respect the rights of fisherman and owners of private property. 

4. Privato boating should be allowed through a permit or HcenSing 

system. 

6. Commercial put-Ins and take-outs should be limited to designated 

areas presontly In use; facilities In these areas should be 

upgraded to meet needs. · . 

6. Commercial boating shall be allowed only above the County Line. 

Camping and Picnicking: 

·1. The following areas should be closed to vehicular 

traffic: Lover's Lane (Double l), mana Vlvlanita's Place (by footbridge In Embudo); La Junta de los Rlos, where the Rio Embudo meets 

the Rio Grande. Natural resources should be accessible to local 

people. 

2. With help of Highway Dept. and other agencies, replant and 

landscape existing off-highway parking areas from Pilar to Velarde, 

not only for . travelers, but for fisherman, photographers •. artists. 

3. Use of campgrounds should be restricted to private usage -

no large publiG: events (such as the Ill-fated Jazz Festival). 

4. local residents should enjoy no-charge permits for camping and 

picnicking. 

Trails: 

1. No acquisitions of private land to develop new trails .between 

Taos Junction and Velarde. 

2. leave existing trails on the West Mesa undeveloped. 

3. Develop local nature/scenic walk trails In existing recrea~n 

areas only. · 

4. Prohibit use of motorized vehicles and 'pack animals on existing 

trails. 

Trash: NOTE: Trash is a major problem In the Rfo Grande Co"ldor. 

Development which encourages more people will only make problem 

worse. BLM has not adequately dealt with trash In Its ·areas even at 

present levels. · 

1. BLM should set-up task force to deal with trash problem. 

2. Earmark a portion of present and future funding to clean-up arid 

maintain existing areas. · 

3. Encourage recycling through education; at existing recreation 
197 

· areas (through use of compartmented containers, etc). AND recycle 

refuse collected. 

Traffic: Highway safety Is an issue of great concern to local residents. 

It Is a complex issue tl1at we understand is not totally within the 

ability of the BLM to resolve. However, the BLM must consider the · 

effect of encouraging greater numbers of visitors to the co"ldor. 

Geography and present levels of use already make this. a very 

dangerous stretcl1 of highway, end recreational users (hikers, 

bikers, skiers, campers, picnickers, fishermen, boaters, the 

whole leisure-time Industry); all come here In motor vehicles. 

These visitors also put a strain on t11e rescue squad and Dixon Fire 

Department, whic/1 the community cannot afford. 

1- BLM, working with Highway Depl. and local cornrnunilles, must 

first assess projected Increases in traffic expected from greater 

recreational use prior to implementing any plan for development 

which would encourage such use. 

2. BLM, working with Highway Dept. and locals, must JTiinlrnize 

traflic hazards which presently exist due to recreational use 

(e.g. speeding skiers returning from Taos and "rubberneckers• 

driving the canyon while watching railers). 

La Mesita: 

1. Acquire private land on La Mesila through trade and allow natural 

revegetation to protect water quality in Acequia Junta y Cienega and 

prevent arroyos from darnnging irrigated land in Embudo. 

2. Block access road to vehicular traffic to prevent trash dumping. J 

Archeology: Archeological evidence should remain as is, no development 

of any sort, including trails to sites and excavations. 

Mining: No mining from rim to rim of canyon. 

Herbicides: · No use of herbicides or any toxic materials on BLM land, 

whether by BLM, other government agencies, or private permittees. 
198 

Mr. VENTO. Perhaps, for the purpose of continuity, it would be 

best to hear from the two witnesses on the Farmington, since we 

have kind of been into that, and then have you to cleanup in this 

case, Beth. 

So I will ask Nathan Frohling from the Farmington River Watershed Association to proceed with his testimony. Mr. Frohling. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF NATHAN FROHLING, FARMINGTON 

RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION; NORMAN ROGERS, JR., 

CHAIR, FARMINGTON RIVER STUDY COMMITTEE; AND BETH 

NORCROSS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, AMERICAN RIVERS, INC. 

STATEMENT OF NATHAN FROHLING 

Mr. FROHLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is indeed a pleasure to be here. I represent a 3,000-member 

organization in Connecticut that has been working on this since its 

inception and we strongly support H.R. 2815. 

I am also proud to say that the Izaak Walton League, the National Audubon Society, the National Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, 

American Whitewater Affiliation, American Canoe Association and 

the West Virginia Rivers Coalition are strongly supporting the bill 

and they are on our testimony. Together they represent well over 

a million members. 

Your original support for the study bill has created an opportunity to achieve, I think, the single greatest conservation achievement for any of Connecticut's rivers, and whatever happens, we 

thank you for that opportunity. 

From our 40 years of existence, we know firsthand that the 

Farmington River is nationally outstanding. When you hear the 

rush of whitewater, smell the scent of undisturbed forest, see endless autumn colors, as the photograph to the left shows, rising from 

wild rapids, witness captivating changes in topography, or gaze literally at the bottom through clear water, you know that the Farmington is a special river. Add to that Atlantic salmon returning, 

bald eagles, high biological diversity, exemplary experiences for canoeing, kayaking, fly fishing, and an entire corridor steeped in 

rural historical character, you know that the Farmington River is 

one of the Nation's best. 

It is also located next to a high population center and it is enjoyed by many, many Americans, not just Connecticans. It is no 

surprise also that the river is experiencing a tremendous amount 

of pressure for exploitation. Designation is the only authority which 

can provide the level of protection that the river needs, and to that 

end a river protection management plan has been adopted, which 

we have been talking about, that establishes, we believe, an unsurpassed high standard of resource protection and probably is one of 

the strongest plans for any wild and scenic designation river. 

Nearly 50 percent of all river land is now in public ownership for 

conservation purposes. In addition, strict consistent zoning, which 

we have been speaking of, has been passed by all the towns prohibiting any degradation within 100 feet of the river on both sides. 

In addition, the towns have passed resolutions committing themselves to river protection specifically for wild and scenic designa-
199 

tion, and high standards have been set for water quality and water 

flow. 

This unanimously supported plan unifies diverse interests. It resolves bitter resource conflicts, resource allocation conflicts. It creates interlocking commitments, and it requires status reports to 

the Interior Secretary and puts all the protection and cooperation 

in place before designation. 

Mr. Chairman, congressional designation is at the heart of the 

river management plan. Designation is the hub holding all the 

spokes of the river protection wheel together, and we hope that you 

will help us in getting this designation passed for a truly outstanding river. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for summarizing your statement. It is an 

excellent statement and I appreciate the effort you put into it, especially getting that West Virginia support. [Laughter.] 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frohling on H.R. 2815 follows:] 
200 

TESTIMONY 

Of the FARMINGTON RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 

On House of Representatives Bill No. H.R. 2815 

WILD & SCENIC DESIGNATION 

For The 

FARMINGTON RIVER 

SUBMITTED TO: 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 

Chairman 

and the 

House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, & Public Lands 

By 

Nathan M. Frohling 

Executive Director, Farmington River Watershed Association 

749 Hopmeadow St. 

Simsbury, CT 06070 

203-658-4442 

October 28, 1993 
201 

The Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) strongly supports H.R. 

2815. We are pleased that the Izaac Walton Leaque representing 54,000 member.;, the National 

Audubon Society and Northeast Regional Office of Audubon, representing over 450,000 

member.;, the national Sierra Club and the Northeast Regional Conservation Committee 

representing over 500,000 members, Trout Unlimited representing over 70,000 members, the 

American Whitewater Affiliation representing 30,000 members, the American Canoe Association 

representing 35,000 members, and the West Virginnia Rivers Coalition, the largest statewide rivers 

group east of the Rockies, join with us and have signed on to the following testimony. There are 

many other local organizations, too many to mention here, who also support the bill. 

Introduction: 

We are a non-profit organization with over 3000 members in Connecticut and Massachusetts 

dedicated to river protection. We have been at the core of the campaign to achieve designation and 

have received national awards for our effortS. FRW A sought designation as early as 1981 when 

the river was threatened by a major water diversion project In our years of effort we have enlisted 

hundreds of people and groups to actively support designation. We have worked with scores of 

town and state officials and we have made Wild & Scenic designation our number l organizational 

priority. We fought a difficult battle with anti-environmentalists and prevailed in Connecticut. 

We know first hand that the Farmington River is nationally significant. We also know that without 

designation as an inspiring catalyst, the community would not have made the personal sacrifices 

needed to save this river. And we know that without an approach emphasizing local stewardship 

and sovereignty, community support for designation could never have been achieved. 

The Farmington Wild & Scenic Bill and all that it represents is a precious opportunity for our 

nation. It will save a nationally outstanding resource, establish a high standard of resource 

pro,!ction, and open a critically needed avenue for protection of rivers nation wide. Congressional 

designation is essential if the River Management Plan, so valuable in bringing all the parties 

together to agree on contentious issues, is to be carried out. Designation is the core of the process 

and is the motivational glue holding the local efforts together. 

Protection of an Outstanding National Resource: 

The National Park Service has documented that the Upper Farmington River possesses outstanding 

and remarkable natural and cultural resources. Words, however, can not replicate the profound 

experience one has on the Farmington River. Whether its the .sound of white water rushing over 

rocks, the sweet smell of air refreshed by diverse, lush vegetation, the crisp sight of rapids against 

autumn colors, the captivating changes in topography or the sparkling look of the bottom seen through clear, high quality water, the Farmington River is outstanding. Add to that Bald Eagles, 

an abundance of wildlife and species diversity, exemplary experiences in canoing, kayaking, fly 

fishing and a rural, historical character which defines the entire river corridor, the Farmington 

River jumps out as one of the nation's best. Located less than an hour away from major urban 

population centers, it can be enjoyed by many Americans. It is no surprise that the river is 

experiencing tremendous pressure for exploitation. Protection through Wild & Scenic designation 

is the only mechanism that can bring all the parties involved together. Designation is the only 

authority which can provide the level of protection the river needs. 

Farmington Designation Establishes a High, Unsurpassed Standard of 

Resource Protection: 

From the very beginning; the Farmington designation was designed as an answer to the litany of 

problems encountered in trying to designate or manage other private land rivers like the Housatonic or Upper Delaware. After more than 5 years of study and intense effort by many parties who 

collectively represent all river interests, a river protection management plan has been prepared and 

approved which may well be the strongest such plan ever prepared for a Wild & Scenic river . 

(l) 
202 

The Management Plan does 4 important things. One, it establishes a high standard for the level of 

actual resource protecti9n. Nearly 50% of all river land is now publically owned for conservation 

purposes. One of the most notable triumphs was the adoption of strict, consistent zoning 

regulations by all the towns prohibiting any degradation within 100' of the river. High standards 

of protection have also been agreed to by the State and Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). 

Two, the Management Plan establishes a standard for involvement and unification of diverse and 

often competing river interests. This forms a strong structure for assuring river protection because 

it establishes interlocking roles and commitments for each interest of the network. The Plan, 

which embodies and facilitates a high level of cooperation and partnership, is unanimously 

supported by all. 

Three, the Management Plan establishes a standard for resolving conflicts through objective 

analysis. Completion of an lnstream Flow Study provided the basis for the FRW A and the MDC, 

once bitter enemies, to agree on what standards would govern future river flow management 

decisions. 

Four, the Management Plan establishes a standard which puts the protection and cooperation in 

place before going to Congress. The federal government can enjoy an unprecedented level of 

predictability in the level of overall resource protection provided prior to designation . 

The Farmington designation does not allow federal land condemnation or acquisition as a threat to 

gtJarantee resource protection through time. Does this weaken tlu: level of protection? No, it 

strengthens it By removing the fear and condescension of a "federal land threat", a high level of 

resource protection has been produced voluntarily by the local communities and other interests. 

This process has also created a strong commitment to continued, ongoing river protection. That 

commitment is what replaces the need for condemnation. 

The community commitment is solid. The commitment is solid because it is inclusive, it involves 

everyone from state government to property owners. It is solid because the communities have 

made a great effort to accomplish the local protections and will not tolerate their undoing. It is 

solid because an informed and active constituency has been established for river protection. It is 

solid because community pride and identity are now tied to Wild & Scenic designation. There is an 

array of peer accountability which although not as prescriptive as federal condemnation is arguably 

more effective. But there are even more "safeguards." Number one, it is not possible legally for 

towns to rescind zoning regulations without great effort and time. Secondly,the towns have also 

passed separate resolutions which commit them to uphold river protection specifically for Wild & 

Scenic designation. These provide an overlapping legal foundation to defend against any action 

that would weaken river protection or the wning regulations. Thirdly, the management plan calls 

for the Farmington River Coordinating Committee and National Park Service to report to the 

Secretary of the Interior on the status of the river designation. This heightens the visibility and 

accountability for what happens. Fourthly, the state of CT is pursuing a rivers program which will 

support and further enforce the local actions. 

All of these assurances should be considered in light of the fact that with the threat of federal land 

condemnation and acquisition the river would never have been protected in the first place. It is 

also unclear to what degree condemnation has actually worked as a useful conservation tool or 

assurance of protection on other rivers in the nation. Finally, the trust involved in this process 

works both ways. The federal government is trusting the collective commitment of 5 CT towns, 

the state and other river interests; this same group is trusting the federal government to act in good 

faith. This cooperation should now include the federal government 

The Farmington designation approach demonstrates the ability of a cooperative approach to provide 

(2) 
203 

ongoing resource protection. It intentionally departs from the use of fear or threat to guarantee 

protection. FRW A's relationship with the MDC is a profound living example of this principal. 

When we fought bitter battles over the river, countless energy was lost, deeper trenches dug and 

the river was not protected. FRW A had sought designation as a vehicle to block the MDC from 

their plans to divert the river. We testified against each other before this committee in 1985. In 

moving toward a cooperative approach, we discovered our common ground and made a choice to 

look for partnership. We found it. As a result we stand together in seeking Wild & Scenic 

designation. 

Although a new approach, the Farmington designation is entirely based on the Wild & Scenic Act 

and is not an aberration from its intent or tenents. First, a precedent for no federal land acquisition 

and condemnation is established in Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, the Farmington has 

complied with Section 6(c) and has met the Act's criteria for prohibiting federal land 

condemnation. This section also reflects a philosophy supporting a local approach. Thirdly, the 

Farmington has 45% public land ownership on the river. This is virtually enough to meet the 50% 

standard of the Act under Section 6(b) which prohibits condemnation of fee title. 

Farmington River Designation Is A Breakthrough For Expanding 

River Protection In The Nation: 

Nationally outstanding private land rivers are not being protected through designation such as the 

Penobscot, the Shepaug, the Housatonic, the Pemi because communities fear federal domination. 

The Upper Delaware designation still suffers from an alienation between the federal government 

and local communities. On private land rivers - by defmition - local community support is 

required for designation. Add to this the anti-environmental "wise use" movement which has 

spawned a revolution to redefine private property rights and exaggerate fear of the federal 

government. Its very simple. As long as the threat of federal land condemnation exists, 

community support is near to imposs;ble to obtain for designation on private land rivers. 

The Farmington designation is a breakthrough for river protection because it directly attacks and 

solves the problem of winning community support. Furthermore, it did so without sacrificing a 

high standard of resource protection. 

On the Farmington, we sought from the very beginning to prove to our communities that the 

federal government could be trusted because we were "doing it differently", building a designation 

on the strength of local protections, not on a heavy handed federal presence. In working to build 

trust and bring people on board, we sought ways to minimize the perception that the federal 

government could still fmd a way to "impose their will over our lives." The advent of the river 

becoming a national park, the establishment of quarter mile boundaries and even federal land 

acquisition were all promoted by our foes as evidence of inevitable federal control in the future. 

These same foes found many examples to promote fear. They repeatedly broadcast the Diane 

Sawyer TV program on the Cuyahoga River, they brought Don Rupp up from the Upper 

Delaware, and they had no trouble finding examples to "prove" the dangers of becoming 

designated. Its not clear to a confused, scared public that these claims are false. In Connecticut 

where FRW A is a well established name, the public maintained their trust in the process. They 

accepted our assurances that designation would be based on provisions making local sovereignty 

very clear. It is only because designation was built on this local approach that we were successful 

where others have failed. As a result we are now able to pursue designation for 14 miles of the 

Upper Farmington in CT. 

Our job in building and maintaining trust was particularly difficult because we did not have 

existing, previously established examples of the positive approach taken on the Farmington. In 

Massachusetts, distrust won the day and designation was defeated. Until the Farmington is 

designated, there will not exist Wild & Scenic rivers which sufficiently demonstrate to the public 

(3) 
204 

that the "feds" will work hand in hand with the local community on a basis of mutual trust 

If an approach for Wild & Scenic designations is nQt established which removes the fear of an 

adverse federal presence, many opportunities for protecting private land rivers will be losl That 

approach, as on the Fannington, must emphasize flexibility as it must also conform to the Wild & 

Scenic Act. The Farmington is a breakthrough because it does both. 

The Fannington is also a breakthrough because in addition to removing fear and-building trust it 

opens up a powerful phenomena for achieving ecological sustainability. In our experience, there 

is tremendous untapped motivation in our citizens for environmental protection. An overwhelming 

number of people feel powerless to act on the serious issues of our day, even the fate of their own 

home town environment. However, people care a great deal. They are hungry to feel ownership 

and partoership in acting to solve problems. But people suffer from cynicism, they don't know 

where to begin, they feel isolated, and ultimately they believe they can't be successful. 

The "local approach" of the Fannington turns that around and opens an avenue for that motivation 

to emerge. It has empowered citizens to believe they can make a difference and to step forward, 

roll up their sleeves and act for environmental stewardship - even when it has meant personal 

sacrifice. For example, one of the river fronting property owners in the town of Hartland provided 

the local leadership needed to establish the strict river zoning mentioned above. 

Approaching designation this way works because of 4 basic components; motivation, structure, 

trust and responsibility. The opportunity to obtain Congressional designation provides a visible, 

focused goal which motivates a community. Secondly, the Wild & Scenic Act and the fede® 

government provide a structure to guide and organize the communities. Third and very critical is 

the local approach to that structure which empowers citizens to play a role, take responsibility, and 

trust that the federal role will be one of partoership, not domination. Finally, building such a 

process of community involvement causes the local citizenry to take personal responsibility instead 

of looking for someone else to do it for them. From this is born the accountability and 

dependability that is needed to assure ongoing river protection. It has been inspiring to see a citizenry rally for their values, pride, and love for a river that defines the character of their 

community. 

We believe that the local approach of the Farmington is an early example of an important and timely 

new concept in environmental protection espoused by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt: that various 

interests of a local or regional ecosystem work together to identify common ground and seek 

solutions to both protect the resource and incorporate legitimate human needs. 

Completing Congressional Designation Is Critical: 

The Farmington is a model for other private land rivers. Rivers such as the Concord Sudbury 

Assibet are depending on the success of the Fannington designation and its local approach. Efforts 

which have failed on other rivers are expected to be restarted if the Fannington succeeds such as on 

the Housatonic River in CT. 

If the Farmington designation succeeds, the thousands of volunteer hours and efforts will be 

rewarded and an example will have been achieved for river protection. That example will convey 

that citizen efforts and volunteer leadership can make a difference. If it fails, just the opposite 

message will be sent all aero~ New England if not the U.S. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bill to designate the 

Fannington River Wild & Scenic. We are available to answer any questions that the committee 

may have. 

(4) 
205 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Rogers, welcome. Your statement has been made 

a part of the record as well, so you can summarize or read if you 

choose. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN ROGERS, JR. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. And I will do so, Mr. Chainnan. And 

thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify before you 

this morning. 

I am chair of the Fannington River Study Committee, and I 

must tell you it has been probably the most exciting and exhilarating experience of my professional and civic career to date. 

I am a lifelong resident of New Hartford, Connecticut, where I 

have been involved in town government for over a decade, including service on our Board of Selectmen. I have known the river all 

my life, and I do hope that you can experience the breathtaking 

beauty and natural splendor of this precious resource. 

And on behalf of the Study Committee and the people of the 

Fannington Valley, I urge your support for H.R. 2815 to designate 

the river as a Wild and Scenic River. 

The people residing in the towns along this river have voted almost unanimously for designation at each of their town meetings. 

And moreover, as Nathan has pointed out, the towns have adopted 

enhanced zoning which sets forth a buffer strip along the river 

bank. And, as you know, obtaining such a unifonn, strong regulation, among several adjacent communities is really an exceedingly 

rare event in this country. 

The remarkable achievement of the study process is the fact that 

we were able to bring so many disparate groups together, and that 

these groups were ultimately able to see beyond their own interests 

for the common good is quite extraordinary. The success of the 

study is local involvement, and the management plan which we 

talked about this morning does embody a long-tenn protection 

based on local control and existing programs. 

We believe that the Federal Government will act as a key player and partner with local authorities and river management for decades to come. We think this bill builds on the models of the Wildcat 

in New Hampshire and the great Egg Harbor and the Morris in 

New Jersey, and we urge your support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your testimony and we will get back 

with questions in a moment. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rogers on H.R. 2815 follows:] 
206 

october 28, 1993 

To: House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands 

From: Norman E. Rogers, Jr. 

Re : H.R. 2815, the bill to designate the Farmington River 

a National Wild and scenic River 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

before you today . My name is Norman Rogers and I chair the 

Farmington River Study Committee. I am a life-long resident of New 

Hartford, connecticut and have served in town government for over 

a decade including service on the board of selectman. I am an 

attorney and current serve as judge of probate for the district. 

I have known the Farmington River all of my life and wish each 

of you could experience the breathtaking beauty and natural 

splendor of this national treasure. On behalf of the the Study 

Committee and people of the Farmington Valley, I urge passage of 

this bill to designate the Farmington as a wild and scenic river 

(see attached exhibit A). 

The people residing in the Connecticut towns along the river 

segment have voted for designation of the river at their town 

meetings. (see attached exhibit B). Moreover, the towns also 

adopted enhanced zoning for the river which establishes a uniform 

buffer strip along the riverbank. As you know, obtaining such 

uniformly strong regulation among several adjacent communities is 

exceedingly rare in this country. 
Paqe Two 

In fact, the remarkable achievement of this study process 

is that we were able to brinq so many disparate qroups toqathar to 

aqree on a manaqement plan before desiqnation. That these qroups 

were ulti-tely able to see beyond their own interests for the 

comaon qood is extraordinary. 

Quite simply, the success of this study in local involv ... nt. 

The manaqement plan eabodies lonq-tera protection basad· on local 

control and existinq proqrams, not new layers of bureaucracy. 

After desiqnation, the federal qovernmant will act as a partner 

with local authorities in river manaqemant. 

I wish you could have attended our meetinqs, we had a crowd of 

200 people in January who voted unani•ously for desiqnation. In 

addition, our schools have inteqrated conservation of this river 

into classroom studies. And it is for our children and future 

qenerations that I urqe your support for desiqnation of the 

Farminqton. 

Ill 
208 

EXHIBIT A 

FAllMlNGTON JliVEB. STVDY COMMITTEE 

The following motions were adopted by unanimous vote of the full membenhip of the 

Paani.ngtDn River Study Committee at ita meeting on TbUIIday, Aprl129, 1993 at the 

Barklwnlted (Ccmnc=lcat) Elomentary School: 

Rim Me•cmcnt Plan 

Be It resolved that The Farmlngton River Study Committee adopt the umw FarmiD&IQn 

lUyer MapaFUJM! PiAn [dated April29, 1993] as providing a balanced approach to loaa· 

1erm pro~ and 1J1e of the Pllfiiiinlton River. 

WBd and SCfldc IUw Dc@patlog 

Be it resolved that: 'I'he ParmiJI&ton River Study Coii1IIIitlce recommend to the United Sl*a 

CongieSS tbat the Fannington River, from immediately below the Goodwin Dam and 

Hydroelectric Project in Hartland, Connecticut to the downstream end of the New 

Battford/cantoo, Coonectlcut town line, be dcaipated into the National Wild and Scalic 

Rivers Syem in ICCOidaDce with the spirit and provi1ioDa of the Upper l'armin&ton River 

Managemeat Plan. 

Further, be it reaol.ved by the Parmln&tOn River Study Committee tiW, in the absence of 

town votea supporting deaipation, no lOtion be tam. !tprding a ~ for the 

designation of the Massachusetts aecd.oo of lhe river. 
209 

EXHIBIT B 1 

aaaolution ~~aatinq that the J'ar.ainqton aive~ ~ 4eal;uted fo~ 

inolusion iato~ha Bational Wlld and saania Rive~ s7etem 

aeaolvad 

na~Haa The l'amln;toa Ri va:r flow• throu;h the ToVD of • ..., BUtfo:rd, couaotiout, and b a utu:ral :nsouraa of q:raat i.lapo:rtanoa to the Ton aad the lt&te of coueatiaut, aDd 

W1aareasa 'l'he quality aa4 quaatity o~ ita wate:r ue eaautial aDd 

lDtdnio to tile uiDteD&Doa aDd eDhaDonent ot wi141ife, 

fiahed.ea, :reol'eation, 91'ouadwatu auppUaa aad the 

pbrsiaal beauty or the landaoape, aad 

Wlau .. aa 'l'he llaUonal 1Ult Sarvioe has 41ter'llliDid that till 

J'a:raiDqtOD River ia eliqible tO~ Wild ID4 80IDiO a~VIl' 

cleai;nation baseiS on its autataDdiDCJ Uallaries, wildlife, :reo~eational and hiatorio values, and 

ne~easa The people of Mew Kartto:r:4 :r:eao9nhs the importance of 

thia i:r:nplaGeable natu~al asset and huey express a 

o011111itment to the p:r:oteotion and p;reaervation of the 

J'U'IIIiD9'ton Rive~ oo:ra:icloa: ucl the . outstudin; valuaa 

idaatifiecl in the Wil4 and soanio aive:r study, and 

Whe:raaaa The 'l'OVD ot Hn Kartfo;rcl, the ral'lllb,qton aivaa: study coai'ttae .an4 the National Ink suvice are wo:rkinq cooperatively to develop an affective loGally-baaed plan tbat will enau~e the neoeaaary protection of the :rive:r 

aDd ita :related reaourae•, and · . . 1rbenaa1 The Wlld &Del aaeftia lllver Ded;~atlon woul4 provide fui'thw proteatio~a of the river and .yet would affozo4 

local control a~acl :requlation ~y auoh towna oommitta4 to 

tba protaotion of the rarmin;ton River, 

BOW TRKIBrCRB, Bl lT RISO~VID, that the people of the Town Of New 

Kazotfozo4 petition the con;r••• of the United stat•• of America to claaiq~~ate the Ja~in;ton Rival' aa a Wil~ aDd SOalliO River with the 

unde:ratandin; that auah cleaiqnation would ~· ~aa•4 on the locally- developed ziver conae:rvation plan and would not invlova fede:ral 

aoquiaition or mana; .. ant ot landa, anc 

Bl IT J'tJB.THIR UIOLVliD, that the townapeople urqe our aleotad 

official• to oonaida;r and, wherever appropriate, adopt adclltioDal 

looal aeaaarea that will •tren;then the Town•a pzooteotion of thia 

ozoitioial rasouroe, 
210 

Mr. VENTO. But we want to hear from Beth Norcross, who will 

discuss both the measures before us, the Rio Grande and the Farmington River. 

Beth. 

STATEMENT OF BETH NORCROSS 

Ms. NORCROSS. I will begin my comments with the Farmington 

since we are on that subject. I feel a little bit like the skunk at the 

garden party. 

We should begin by commending Mrs. Johnson. You have shown 

exemplary leadership on this issue. We intend to continue to work 

with you and your staff and the local representatives. We believe 

that we are very close to forging a compromise on this bill. We appreciate the leadership you have demonstrated on this river. 

We know that this compromise has been hard fought, hard won, 

under a very, very difficult, stressful situation. We commend the 

Park Service, the Farmington Watershed Association and the 

Farmington Study Committee. What they have come up with is an 

exemplary management plan which will serve the river very, very 

well. 

We, unfortunately, are not able to support the bill in its current 

form, and I will run through some of our concerns. 

If we are indeed looking at this piece of legislation in a vacuum, 

I believe that we would be supportive. Unfortunately, American 

Rivers needs to think about the next bill down the road and the 

one after that and the one after that. We believe that the bill as 

drafted sets some dangerous precedents that should be addressed 

and can be addressed, we believe, successfully. This bill, as you pointed out before, Mr. Chairman, relies heavily 

on the management plan. While it is indeed unusual, we believe 

that it works in this situation. It is an exemplary plan. I have read 

the plan. The Park Service has endorsed the plan. We wholeheartedly support the idea of preparing a plan in advance of designation so that folks in the area will know exactly what designation does and what it doesn't do. So in this particular case I think 

it is fine and appropriate that the plan should be the vehicle 

through which this river is managed. 

That having been said, we have a couple of concerns, as I noted 

before, with the bill. In particular, the savings clauses with 

Colebrook Dam and Goodwin Dam that you mentioned earlier, indeed the licensing and relicensing decisions are tied to the plan. I 

believe that we could accept that savings clause in that regard, although it is not clear in the bill who would make the decisions as 

to whether it was consistent with the plan or not. We would suggest in this case that some mechanism be added to the bill whereby 

the Secretary of the Interior would make that decision. 

I should point out. Again in lieu of the conversation you had earlier, that the flood control facilities have a savings clause that is 

not tied to the plan. So we would suggest also that the continued 

operation of the flood control facilities, indeed any changes in those 

continued operations, be again tied to the plan. 

We are also concerned with the prohibition in the bill on the Secretary's ability to acquire land along the corridor. We have found 

land acquisition to be a very important and reliable protection tool. 
211 

As we have discussed earlier, condemnation will not be allowed 

in this segment, so that is not a threat. We do believe that landowners who want to give, trade or sell their land to the Park Service should be allowed to do that. 

And not only does it tie the Secretary's hand and management, 

but it also ties landowners hands as well as to limiting them as to 

what they can and can't do with their land. 

We are also concerned about the fact that the bill calls for no distinct lateral boundary. We believe that this will be terribly confusing. The plan seems to take care of that, again, in the situation 

that we have here with the Farmington. We don't believe that this 

is a particularly good precedent for other Wild and Scenic rivers. 

There is a great deal of flexibility in the Act, as you know, with 

the quarter-mile boundary, that it can weave in and out and 

around resource projects and the like. And we believe that the Act 

in and of itself is flexible enough to take care of that. 

We believe not only will it cause confusion with the Park Service 

as to where their authority begins and ends, but also to landowners 

in the area who may feel that the Park Service authority isn't 

somehow unlimited because it doesn't have any boundaries around 

it. 

A couple of comments on testimony that we heard earlier, in particular, your concerns about the Advisory Committee not meeting 

the Procedures Act. What we would suggest in that case is that, 

as we have done before, that we use cooperative agreements called 

for in lO(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with specific towns 

and the State, members again of the same advisory committee, use 

the provisions of the Act to get around your concerns with this advisory committee not meeting this particular statute. 

I am aware that the Justice Department has been very sticky 

about that in other pieces of legislation, and given the edicts now 

down from the White House regarding advisory committees, I have 

no reason to believe they are going to be less stringent. 

I would just like to close on the Farmington by saying that we 

wholeheartedly endorse designation of this river. This river deserves preservation, it deserves protection. The folks up there who 

have worked so hard along with Mrs. Johnson and her staff deserve to see this to its conclusion. We hope that we can be helpful 

in doing that while at the same time retaining the integrity of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

I will just comment briefly on the Rio Grande bill. We do support 

the bill. The Rio Grande is a river in trouble. American Rivers designated the Rio Grande as the most endangered river in 1993. 

It may be outside the scope of this hearing to go into the myriad 

issues that are facing the Rio Grande. Suffice it to say that any 

problem facing America's rivers today can be found on the Rio 

Grande, starting from its headwaters which have been destroyed 

by an ill-advised cyanide leaching project on a gold mine all the 

way down to the inadequate, if not simply not available, sewage 

treatment plants and so forth on the Mexican border. 

We would urge this subcommittee and the committee as a whole 

to take a look at the Rio Grande. It is, as I said, a river in serious 

trouble. 
212 

Mr. Richardson is to be commended for taking this step toward 

protecting an additional 12 miles of the segment. We don't have 

any particular concerns with the advisory committee, but understand Mr. Baca's concerns with its makeup. 

I just should note the reason for the makeup is indeed unusual, 

but the case is unusual as well since usually on Wild and Scenic 

segments the landowners are at the very least divided. In this case 

the landowners are very supportive and actually lobbied for a more 

stringent designation, stringent classification of the river. They are 

very involved. They want very much to protect their river and so 

they have lined up to be on the advisory committee. So that may 

explain why it seems so tilted in that direction. 

That does summarize my statement. I would ask that my full 

statement be included in the record and would be glad to answer 

any questions at this time. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Norcross on H.R. 2815 and H.R. 1471 

follows:] 
213 

American 'Rigers 

TESTIMONY OF BETH NORCROSS 

DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS 

AMERICAN RIVERS, INC. 

ON H.R. 2815 AND H.R. 1471 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

october 28, 1993 

80 I I'ENNSYI.VANIA AVE.. S.E. 

~400 

•. ~·· 

W ASIIINGTON

(202) 547-6900 

, DC 20003 , •. 

(202) 543-6142 (FAX) a member of Earth Share .. 

76-068 - 94 - 8 
214 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify on three bills: H.R. 2815, a bill to designate the Farmington River in Connecticut as an addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and H.R. 

1471 and S. 375, bills to add to the designated segment of the 

Rio Grande River in New Mexico already in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. My name is Beth Norcross, and I am the 

Director of Legislative Programs of American Rivers, a 15,000 

member organization committed to the protection and restoration 

of the nation's outstanding rivers. 

Turning first to H.R. 2815, I would first like to thank 

Congresswoman Johnson for the leadership she has displayed in the 

introduction of this measure to add the Farmington River in 

Connecticut to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It 

attempts to respond to some contentious local issues surrounding 

wild and scenic designation on private lands rivers and seeks to ensure protection of the riparian resources while assuring 

citizens that their rights to live along and use the river will 

not be impaired. 

While we cannot support the legislation in its current form, we do commend the Park Service's North Atlantic Office and the 

Farmington River Watershed Association for forging a difficult 

and hard-won compromise with the public, local officials and the 

State of Connecticut. These individuals overcame tremendous odds 

to gain local support for this legislation. 

Our concerns with the bill, as outlined below, center around 

dangerous precedents that would be established with this 

designation. We have worked closely with Congresswoman Johnson's 

staff and the Farmington River Watershed Association to move this 

bill closer to maintaining the integrity of the Act. I am confident that continued discussions can result in a compromise we will all be able to support. 

The Farmington Wild and Scenic Study was authorized by Congress in 1986. The study included a 25-mile stretch of the 

Farmington, 11 miles in Massachusetts and 14 miles in 

Connecticut. While the entire segment was found eligible for 

Wild and Scenic designation, the Park Service recommended only 

the Connecticut section due to lack of local support in 

Massachusetts. We are hopeful that, once wild and scenic 

designation is enacted and implemented in Connecticut, the 

Massachusetts towns will see the benefits of such river 

protection efforts and change their minds regarding designation. 

As required by the original study legislation, the Park 

Service prepared the Farmington Wild and Scenic Study in 

1 --
215 

cooperation with the Farmington River Study Committee, made up of 

representatives of towns along the river, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, the state of connecticut, the Hartford 

Metropolitan District Commission, and the Farmington River 

Watershed Association. The Park Service prepared a draft 

management plan for the river prior to designation in order to 

offer assurances and allay fears regarding what wild and scenic 

management would really mean to the area. The resultant "Upper 

Farmington River Management Plan" is an exemplary management plan 

which offers long-term, comprehensive, integrated protection for 

the Farmington. 

H.R. 2815 takes the unusual, but not unprecedented, approach 

of requiring the Secretary of the Interior to manage the 

designated river in accordance with a prepared management plan 

and deems that this plan satisfies management planning 

requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We endorse this 

approach given the quality of the management plan, the Park 

Service's involvement in plan preparation, and the constituent 

support for it. Furthermore, such an approach will assure local 

towns that the river will indeed be managed consistent with the 

expectations they had in voting to support designation. We would 

recommend, however, that the bill establish a mechanism for 

amendment of the Plan and subsequent review of any such 

amendments by the Park Service. 

In an effort to relieve local anxieties about a zealous 

federal management presence in the area, the legislation 

prohibits the Farmington from becoming a unit of the National 

Park System as is required by section lO(c). Again, although 

this prohibition is unusual, it would not unduly affect the 

ability of the Park Service to manage or protect this segment. 

We do not believe that the savings clauses included in the 

bill involving the Colebrook Dam and Goodwin Dam are necessary. 

Since the Farmington was found to be eligible for designation 

with these structures in place, one could not argue that they 

adversely affected designation after the fact. We are concerned, 

however, that future expansion of the facilities could indeed 

degrade the wild and scenic segment. We would therefore 

recommend, if such savings clauses are necessary, that they be 

amended to reflect that the dams "as currently configured" do not 

interfere with designation and that licensing and relicensing 

shall not be affected "to the extent that the proiects are not 

significantly altered from their current configuration". 

We are concerned with the provisions in paragraph (E) (iii) 

that prohibit the Secretary's ability to acquire land along the 

designated corridor. Because the bill provides that local zoning 

-- 2 --
216 

ordinances satisfy section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, thereby prohibiting condemnation within the designated 

corridor, the only acquisition that remains would be by willing 

seller. Eliminating the ability of the secretary to acquire 

lands by trade or by willing seller unnecessarily eliminates an important management and protection tool, and inappropriately 

limits landowner options. 

We are also very concerned about paragraph (F), which 

provides for "no distinct lateral boundary" of the designated 

seqment. While this provision was designed to give management 

flexibility, it will instead cause confusion. Without a corridor 

boundary, the Park Service does not have a clear idea of where 

its management authority begins and ends. Lack of a clear 

boundary also might cause concern among local landowners who 

could view the management authority of the agency along the river 

to be unlimited. 

We strongly support the designation of the Farmington River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. We 

would continue to work with the Subcommittee, Congresswoman 

Johnson, the Park Service, and the Farmington River Watershed 

Association towards a compromise which would both maintain the 

integrity of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, protect the resources of the river, and secure local support for designation. 

I would like to turn next to two bills, H.R. 1471 and s. 

375, which would add to the current wild and scenic designation 

of the Rio Grande River in New Mexico. We appreciate Congressman 

Richardson's introduction of the House bill, and we support its 

enactment without amendment. 

From its headwaters high in the San Juan Mountains of 

southern Colorado, the Rio Grande makes a historic journey of 

almost 2,000 miles to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing the length 

of New Mexico and serving as the boundary between Texas and 

Mexico. The river and its tributaries drain some 355,500 square 

miles. 

By the time its flows into the Gulf near Matamoros, Mexico, 

this once-grand river has been subjected to almost every type of 

degradation possible. In many seqments, the river has been 

ditched, diverted, channelized, and its riparian habitat lost or altered to the point it no longer resembles a natural river. Its 

waters have been over-appropriated and contaminated with 

industrial waste, agricultural pesticides and runoff, sediments, 

municipal sewage, heavy metals, and mine wastes, including 

cyanide and acidic runoff. Such degradation caused American 

-- 3 --
217 

Rivers to list the Rio Grande as the Most Endangered River of 

1993 . 

Fortunately, some portions of the Rio Grande, including the 

extension considered today, are still pristine. The Rio Grande 

enters New Mexico in a deep canyon. For the first 70 miles or so, it is relatively undisturbed, and its beautiful canyon and 

free flowing nature are enjoyed by thousands of .rafters and 

tourists each year. Indeed the gorge is one of the most popular 

river trips in the west. It is particularly important that we protect these remaining natural segments. 

In 1968, Congress designated a 48-mile segment of the 

northern gorge of the Rio Grande as a wild and scenic river; it was one of the eight original wild and scenic rivers designated 

by Congress. s. 375 and H.R. 1471 would extend that designation 

by 12 miles and provide for a study of a 9-mile segment 

downstream of this designated segment. Assorted wildlife, 

magnificent vistas and diverse vegetation may be found along this 

stretch of the Rio Grande . It is also home to important 

archaeological remains, including artifacts of the early Pueblo 

cultures, which settled in the Rio Grande valley thousands of 

years ago . 

We support the designation of this 12-mile stretch of the 

Rio Grande and the study of an additional 9 miles of the River as an important addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and 

added protection for the Rio Grande in New Mexico. However, the 

Rio Grande deserves and requires much more comprehensive 

protection, given the multitude of problems from its headwaters 

to its mouth. Accordingly, we encourage the Subcommittee to hold 

hearings on the full range of issues affecting the entire Rio 

Grande ecosystem and pursue a coordinated federal action plan for 

dealing wi th the many problems that currently exist on and along 

the river. 

-- 4 --
218 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I apfreciate your comments on both these measures before us. I recal now, in terms of reading this last night, 

after you pointed it out to me, that the provision in the bill under 

"Land Management," section E, page 8, of the Farmington bill, does 

state that you cannot acquire any land along the segments tributaries for purposes of Wild and Scenic River designation. 

So I don't know Mr. Frohling, or Mr. Rogers, or Congresswoman 

Johnson, why you couldn't, if they decided they wanted access or 

public access, I guess all of these issues are dealt with in the---

Mr. FROHLING. That is certainly an understandable question. The 

real answer is in the S¥2 years of working with local communities 

to forge a workable plan. 

I think it is important that Federal acquisition is still possible 

through State and local purchases with Federal funds or through 

any other authority. But in order for us to make the case that we 

are not-the communities are not endangering heavy-handed Federal land presence, we literally were compelled to confirm or to assure the communities that Federal land acquisition was also not a 

part of this approach, and that is really the simple answer. 

The other, more technical reason is that in reviewing the lands 

along the river as wild as they are the ownership patterns do not 

make Federal land management practical or advisable from a Federal point of view. And I am really speaking on behalf of the Park 

Service and what they have told us in the local community. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand that. But this particular provision also 

is a restriction on others-if I am a private land owner on the 

Farmington River and I offer my land for sale, it restricts who I 

can sell it to. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that. That 

was a debate, a continuing debate on the committee, and as Mr. 

Frohling points out, I think the reason we drafted that into the 

original language of the bill was to allay some fears on the part of 

landowners that acquisition was just another word for condemnation. 

However, in the last few days we have been working on the language and it is our intention to delete the language because certainly we would encourage friendly acquisitions of land. 

Mr. VENTO. Willing seller, willing buyer shouldn't be a problem, 

and I don't expect that the Park Service is going to have a lot of 

money to buy anything there anyway. It is probably pretty expensive land. And as long as you have got tough zoning, I mean, there 

is no real reason that we need to get involved in spending money. 

I mean in a sense it is an advantage, I guess, for the area and for 

the designation. 

Well, I think I have commented on most of the other particular 

provisions in the bill that Ms. Norcross mentioned. That they are 

a problem, I understand. I suppose the intent with regard to the 

expansion of facilities, the water facilities, is basically that they not 

degrade or modify the river. Is that correct, Mr. Frohling? Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. FROHLING. Absolutely. And I think to clarify some of the 

comments I heard before, the bill does in fact tie the management 

plan to any review for relicensing; i.e., it is not carte blanche in 

terms of designation. Any proposal for the hydro facilities would 
219 

have to conform to Wild and Scenic designation which is specifically spelled out in the management plan. That is in the bill. 

Mr. VENTO. I read this language about no distinct lateral boundary of the delineated segment. While this provision was designed 

to give management flexibility, it instead causes confusion. I must 

say I don't understand that, what the effect of that would be. 

What was the purpose of that no lateral extension issue? Is that 

really based with what the zoning is? I guess if we are looking at 

the plan we have to look at the zoning, and that no lateral extension means that it only has a certain width of corridor. 

Mr. FROHLING. Yes, I think that fundamentally what came to us 

a number of times was what is the need for a quarter-mile boundary and what exactly specifically does it mean? And the way this 

bill and this designation has been developed it doesn't really have 

a specific meaning. 

And so seeing that it did not have any substantive need, and indeed in countering tremendous rhetoric from opposition that this 

would reflect condemnation boundaries and it would reflect the 

area where a Federal code of regulations would be used to harm 

people's businesses and their ability to do their own lives, we saw 

it as a great liability in trying to make the case to the communities 

that the Federal Government is a partner in this project, not an 

opponent, not ready to come in and condemn people's lands. 

So because we didn't see a need for it, and because it was of 

great harm in our work with the communities, it was not included 

in the designation. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, yes, I think the thing isMs. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, may I comment? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Ms. Norcross. 

Ms. NORCROSS. Pardon me. I wanted to reiterate again for the 

Farmington that the no distinct lateral boundary may work only 

because they have a clear idea of where things are and where 

things aren't. I can foresee, however, a case with our opponents 

waiting in the wings to dismantle our future Wild and Scenic designations. That this could be an extremely potent tool for them. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I think the solution to this is to say you have 

got a map, you have got a zoning and we just reference it in the 

plan and then you are done. I mean I don't know, I mean we don't 

get into this and so there it is. There is the boundary. This because 

it has no meaning could be wider, it could be narrower. I understand the intent is to make it inclusive rather than to make it 

broader. 

But it is not normal language that we use. It is confusing to me. 

It is confusing to Ms. Norcross. And so I would just point it out because while I understand what the purpose is, I think that once we 

get to-we don't use that particular phraseology. I think what you 

really want can be accomplished by just referencing the plan. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent solution. 

Mr. FROHLING. That sounds excellent. 

Mr. VENTO. Not to make problems up here for you. 

And, Ms. Norcross, you didn't have any testimony on the National Recreation Area in the Rio Grande bill. There is a 1500 acre 

National Recreation Area that is being designated in the Senate 

measure, in the House measure--
220 

Ms. NORCROSS. On the Dinosaur Trackway? 

Mr. VENTO. No. It is a different area. 

Ms. NORCROSS. The piece that is being withdrawn, the State 

park--

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Ms. NORCROSS. Yes. We certainly would support that. 

Mr. VENTO. Now Mr. Baca, the Director, is saying that he 

wants-that there is much more there now because of the acquisitions that have gone on as compared to what has existed. Do you 

think it would be prudent to give the Advisory Committee a broader role in terms of the 50-mile segment that is already designated 

or not? 

Ms. NORCROSS. I am of mixed mind about that. This particular 

advisory committee is made up, as I said before, of local landowners who have specific interest in those 12 miles. It would seem 

to me that a different kind of advisory committee may work for the 

whole segment. This particular Advisory Committee probably 

would not work for the entire segment. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't think we have to legislate advisory committees usually anyway. So from the legislative one for a need 

here, and I don't want to expand it, I don't think we need to necessarily build on that because no doubt if we hold out that particular issue we will end up with two advisory committees. 

So there is only going to be one. We can reference it. That is 

right. Well, we will see how important it is, but you did testify that you 

thought in this case this Advisory Committee really has a useful 

purpose but it ought to be limited to some time frame. Ms. NORCROSS. We would have no objection to that. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean until they get matters worked out. And if it 

needs to be reconstituted, there is still an important role for it to 

play, I am certain we will hear about it. 

Ms. NORCROSS. I think that is appropriate. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Mr. Rogers, you are supposed to tell me about 

this river. Your photographs, of course, say a great deal about some 

segments of it. 

But in this 14-mile segment of the Farmington, are there mills? 

Have there been any water or power structures that are no longer 

used? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, 45 percent of the land in Connecticut is public land in the form of State parks and--

Mr. VENTO. Forty-five percent? 

Mr. ROGERS. Forty-five percent. And also the Metropolitan District Commission owns acres and acres of land along the river. So 

45 percent is in public ownership. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Along the rivers, do you mean? 

Mr. ROGERS. Along the river banks, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Forty-five percent along the riparian areas is in public ownership; that is, State ownership or local government. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So that is the case here? That is the figure for this 

particular segment? 

Mr. ROGERS. For the Connecticut segment, that is correct. The 

remainder of the river runs mostly through a village center, the vil-
221 

lage center of New Hartford. It runs directly through that, so there 

areMr. VENTO. These are small villages? 

Mr. ROGERS. There are small villages. There are some old mills, 

but most of them now have been converted to different uses. There 

is not a lot of manufacturing. 

Mr. VENTO. We call that adaptive use. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. And the remainder would be residential. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So it is principally residential and there isn't 

any industrial activities. How would you characterize the sensitivity to the river? In other words, is this now looked upon as a 

viewshed and fairly valuable residential property? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think so. I think since the study began there 

has been-the focus has been on the river. The river, obviously, in 

my town, and actually in all of the towns, is a focal point. It has 

been before the study, but I think the study has-that is one of the 

wonderful things about this process is it has drawn so much attention. So in terms of the attractiveness of the land, yes. I would say 

it would be. 

Mr. VENTO. How big are the Atlantic salmon? [Laughter.] 

You can't keep them. It is just a catch and release program, I expect. 

Mr. ROGERS. We have a catch and release program which continues to be expanded. 

Mr. VENTO. And they are Atlantic salmon? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So they actually get in and spawn. Well, it is great 

to hear and learn about that phenomenon. It is when you get to 

that particular point, when you look down and see the fish in the 

water, it is a moment that has some reverence to it. So it is amazing to hear the stories about the fish that are reoccurring in the 

Eastern Seaboard. 

Congresswoman Johnson, did you have any questions of this 

panel? 

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. But I did want to submit for the record a statement from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, in which 

they say the Department's commitment continues to be demonstrated by the relatively recent acquisition of two key parcels in 

Otis. These properties were acquired from willing sellers and represent protection of important river resources. 

And they go on in their testimony to talk about their involvement in the study, their commitment to preservation, and their 

hope that through the example of the Connecticut experience that 

the piece in Massachusetts will eventually be before us for designa- ~~ . 

And also a statement by Robert Terasek from the town of 

Sandisfield, Massachusetts, a very active member of this committee, a town that actually voted for designation overwhelmingly but 

then was invaded by a group entitled the Wise Use Group. It is a 

national property rights movement, who came to town, held forums, used films and propaganda and information that was absolutely not relevant to what we were doing and literally scared the 

town into reversal. 
222 

So we are hopeful that through this process, both the quality of 

the citizen process that lies behind our work, and through designation that not only will Connecticut's portion of the Fannington 

River be designated, but that we then as citizens will be able to 

work with those in Massachusetts to demonstrate that the Federal 

Government is actually a very constructive partner in the longtenn goal of preserving natural resources in the Northeast. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, they will be added to the record. 

[Prepared statements follow:] 
100 Corabrid•• SII'Mf 

8oAon 

Mu..cb ...... , 02202 

otr .... otlho 

Co.misoioowt 

223 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

Department of Environmental Management 

8'l'lL!!JDIIIIP.t' 01' '1'J!B 

DDUTIID'l' OJ' JIJIVDOIIIDIII'IU IQ1PG1!!Q!!!T 

am.&TlVB !'0 ~ J'UKtltC'l'O. Jl%1rJia 

The Department Ot En.vil"oiUIIent.l Kanag-ant (DEM) is 

committed .to tne preservation of the Farminqton River. 

The Department has been involved wi~ Far.ainqton River 

protect:ion efforts prior to the co11.111eneemant of the 

Federal Wild and Scenic Study. The OEM will continua to 

work toward protection of this valuable reso=ce lonq 

after the Federal Wild and Scsnic River study is 

completed and the vote on the federal da&iination of the 

Farmington River as a · wild and scenic river has been 

counted. 

The Dep&rtment•s CO!Illlitlllent continues to b8'1 demonstra~ed by the relatively recent acquisition of two, key parcels in otis. These properties were acquired from 

willin9 lilellers and represent protection of import~~ 

:dver resources. The DEM looks forward to working wi"CA 

interested landowners to rurthar protect the inta9rity of 

the resources of the l!'arlllinqton River · ·through our continued acqubition and protection efforts. · 

·The DEM ia well aware of, respects and will defer to the town meeting votas aqoinst designation ot the 

Formington River ~a a federal Wild and scenic River in 

otis, s .. ndistielc1 and rolland. The CoiiiiiDnwealtb turther 

rec09nizes tb&t :because. o! these votaa the Ha1:1onal Park 

Sarvice will not reCOllllllend · designation tor . the 

Massachusetts segment. 

The CoiiUilonwealth, throuqh OEM, stronqly supports al.L 

arl:orts for illlproved protaction of tha Farmington River, 

and has cdvocatec! !adaral wild and scenic designation as a leqitim4te and desirable means of such protection for 

both the Mass;achusetts and Connecticut study SIJ9!U!nts. 

However, unless and until loeal opinion as expressed by 

the town meetinqs of Otia, sandisfield arid/or Tolland 

5hould change, neither DEM nor any otbar aqency or the 

C0111111onwealth will press for federal wild and scenic 

deaiqnation for the · Maa»achuaetts seqmant of the ra~nqton River. 
October 26 1993 

From Robert Taraauk 

Representative for the town of Sandisfield on the 

Farmington River Study Committee. 

To 1 Bouae of Repreaentatives Subcommittee on National Parka, 

Forests and Public Landa 

azr BR:2815 , A bill to designate the Farmington River as a wild and scenic river. 

Dear Subcon=ittee: 

I live in the small town of Sandisfield, which ia located along 

the upper reacbea of the Farmington river in Masaachusetts. As a 

-..bar of the Farmdnqton River Study ·committee, representing ay 

town, I have worked very hard and donated countless volunteer 

bours, so that I can present my town with the proper information, 

regarding the benefits of wild ar.d scenic designation. the manage-

.. nt plan was specifically crafted for thi8 private land river. It 

was designed to allay the local fears of the government taking 

control or condea.ing privata land in our town. It was clear to 

all o! us on tha study that this waa not to be the case. We were 

to achieve designation throuqh local town votes in favor of 

deaignation, and by eetabliahinq increased protective buffer zones 

[

in the ~diate area along the river. My town had reached a point 

where we voted unanimously in favor of designation aa did the other 

Ha8a&chuaetts towns. Shortly after accompliahinq this task, 
225 

October ~6 1 Tarasuk 

repreaentativea frcm a national property right• movement, 

kncv aa "The Wiee Oaa• movement, came to our tcvn and held 

public forume. They ~ld our people that the government vas 

planning to condemn the land along the river and that everyone 

vas going to loae their homes and bus1neaaesa. Thoy used 

propaganda and filma that vere not evan relevant to this atudy 

and literally scared our poopla and intimidated them. They were 

able ~ convince the town to racind their original desire and the 

aad ~rt is that it vae done, baaed on a campai-gn of lieJI and 

•1ainformatlon: The vote vaa close and our town wae split in 

half. There are many people in our town that feel · 

we have been cheated out of a great opportunity and we look 

forwa:d, with great hope, to the connecticut aegment getting . 

dea~gnatad. It is important that the lll&naqUlent plan that vas 

drafted for the Connecticut eegment, be adopted as ie, ao that 

the Connecticut deaiqnation can be a aodel for us and for many 

other private land rivera. Once the Massachusetts towns see that 

the '.JOVarnment wiU .not take control of their land, we will then 

be able to bring the vote back and achiove designation for the 

Maeaaehueettes aegment. I ur~e you to support HR r 2815. 

' 

/~ 'lob 'l'araauk -· 
226 

Mr. VENTO. It is always disappointing to learn of these actions 

that upset orderly consideration of proposals with some other type 

of agenda. But it happens. 

What you want is a fair review, not one that is skewed one way 

or the other by those that advocate designation and those who oppose it. Unfortunately, I think sometimes fear ends up taking the 

place of reason in these particular instances. 

I guess that explains why some of the provisions are in the bill. 

For instance, it says no part of this particular area will become 

part of the Park System. You know, obviously, if it is a designated 

unit there is a role here for the Park Service. I don't think that 

means the Park Service necessarily needs to own it, but they may 

do some interpretation and other things in the plan. I don't know 

what the plan calls for. 

But most of the time I think that communities are accepting of 

the fact that the Park Service could have some on-the-ground presence for appropriate type of work at the site. I think in this case 

it is largely an administrative role and the provision doesn't necessarily need to be there. But anyway, the point of putting it in the 

bill I don't think is useful, in my judgment, except, of course, to 

allay what I think would be some unwarranted fears. 

Well, I have no further questions of the panel. Mr. Frohling, did 

you have a further comment? 

Mr. FROHLING. I just would add that we greatly appreciate the 

great amount of attention that you obviously paid to our bill today, 

the amount of time that you have taken. I would just add that the State of Connecticut also is dedicated 

to protecting the river. During the course of the study it has purchased parcels of land totaling 3500 feet of river length, over 126 

acres of land, and also is intending to buy land that you see in that 

photograph known as Satan's Kingdom Gorge, and have also made 

greenways and purchases of land along rivers the highest land acquisition priority in the State. So we have an important partner 

with the State of Connecticut. 

And I appreciate your understanding of the fear issue. And I 

guess the simple thought there is that we have had to go to elementary and great lengths to find ways to convey to people what 

we are trying to do here, because fear really is a strong enemy and 

it requires a special approach in order to not allow fear to win. And 

I guess the simple thing is that we are trying hard to achieve protection amidst an atmosphere of great fear. 

And we are confident that working with American Rivers and 

working with you and your staff that we will be able to craft a bill 

that not only protects the river but also maintains the integrity of 

the Act. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much, Mr. Frohling, Mr. Rogers, Ms. 

Norcross. 

We have no further material for the record. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 
APPENDIX 

AUGUST 5 AND OcTOBER 28, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

HORII 

-W . .IIlhr-. -

The Honorable George Miller 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 

DearCorwessmanMiller: 

August 10, 1993 

In mid July Congressman William J, HUshes inlroeb:ed HR 2650 which was refened to )'OU' 

committee. This bill calls for designating the Maurice River and liS lributaries in the State ol New 

Jersey as components oi the National Wild and Scenic River System. There are those oi us in 

Cumberland County who have been actively challenging this Federal designation based on lhe 

negative impact we expect to our Company, our employees, our industry and the local economy. 

I am enclosing several letters meant to inform you of lhe concerns we have been voicing 

publicly for seven years. They are lesJtimale and we ask that you give our apprehensions 

surrounding Wild and Scenic designalion )'OU' utmmt CIIIISideralion before voting on lhe issue. 

Also enclosed is a brochure describing the various industries whose existence relies on the 

induslrial sands we mine, process and ship to thousands oi customers. I'm sure you will be 

surprised at how many oi these products you come in contact with and take for granted on a dally 

basis. 

In closing let me assure you that we have and will continue/ to support Slrong and 

environmentally sound river management on a local level. It has worked for several hoodred years 

and will continue to do so. Under today's federal, stale and local agencies and laws, "preventing 

Southern New Ieney from maldng the- environmental mistakes made by the Northern region" 

constilules a non applicable -..a which has been totfed l'requendy by Congressman Hughes. 

We don't need Wild & Scenic ~on for the watershed to maintain its pristine qualities. 

RWJ:jm 

Enc. 

Very truly yours, 

THE MORIE TY, INC. 

~~,-.r----­

fftJsiclent 

(227) 
228 

HORII 

The Honorable William J, Hughes 

222 New Road 

Central Park E 

Building 4 - Suite 

Linwood, New Jersey 08221 

Dear Congressman Hughes: 

January 14, 1993 

Ronald w. Johnson 

-

The fact that my letter of last October 13 has not prompted so 

much as acknowledgement can mean only one thing. I did' not communicate 

the magnitude of concerns my industry, my company and my employees 

have over Wild & Scenic designation of the Maurice River and it's 

tributaries. 

OUr concern should be evident to anyone familiar with the National 

Wild & Scenic Rivers designation, It states that mining is not a 

permitted use on lands falling within the corridor. From my October 13 

letter making reference to our mining sites and future mining reserves, 

you can well understand our concerns. 

You might wonder what we have done over the past years as this 

designation has been evolving, We have been attending meetings of the 

River co.U.ttees, addressing our concerns to IRWlicipal eo111111ittees, investigating other Wild & Scenic River properties to get a flavor of the 

management and attended public hearings to voice our position. We have 

also been represented on the River Task Force by our Executive V.P. of 

Operations and our Manager of Environmental Affairs. They attempted to 

bring the mining issue to resolve which vas flagrantly ignored by the 

:rask Force, the County Coordinator and the Project Manager representing the 

Park Service. They kaev very well that our concerns were legitimate and 

warranted. I have to believe that you weren't fully advised of the adverse 

affect Wild & Scenic is bound to have on our industry when you introduced 

legislation on this issue to the 103rd Congress. 

I'm enclosing a brochure which gives a cursory overview of the 

important industries of this nation which rely on Industrial Sand for their 

existence. Tbe products they produce are utilized by each of us daily 

and constitute the basis for the quality of life we take for granted. 

THE MORIE COMPANY, INC. 1201 N. High Street. MIIMIIe. New .lefsey08332-2580•f:l:n/327~•FAX: f:l:n/327-7711/J AbMt-.., ........ Compian¥' 
229 

Page 2 1/14/93 

We strongly favor protection of the river and tributaries through 

strong local management allowing industries to continue operating on 

and about the river in an environmentally responsible manner. If, 

however, we do eventually come under the control of the National Park 

Service we need your influence to protect our industry and our 

employees as well as the plants and animals of the region. Keep in 

mind that we are also a part of the history and culture of South Jersey 

and that we too want to survive. 

RWJ:jm 

Enc. 

76-068 - 94 - 9 

Very truly yours, 

T~HE MORIE COr::: 

R nson 

Pres1dent 
230 

NOR II 

Cwnbertand County Department of 

Planning & o.v.lopma1t 

800 E. Cornrnan:e Street 

Bridgeecn, New .Mrsay 08302 

August 4, 1993 

Atln: Mr. St8phln L Kahs, Executive Dlrac:ta 

Dear Mr. Kahs: 

I want to take this opporUlity to raiWat8 the pollllon and 8ICpr8l8 the concema of the sand mining Industry In general, ..:I The Morte company In partla.dar, to 1he 

deslgndon and Inclusion of the M..tce Rlvw and Ita trlbutariea 11 part of the Wild , 

..... river ayam. 

The Morle Company hu three I"'IIIOICe exlracllon oparatlona within the propoaed 

Wild & &:.nlc: river corridor. They era locDd In Commwcial Township, M..tce Alwr 

Township and the City of VIneland. Of pertk:ular concern Ia The Marie company's nawest 

facllty, The Port Elzabelh .,...., which will be loc:al8d wllhln the Mulkee Creek segment 

of the Wild & &:.nlc: corridor. In addition to pu'Chaslng the site, 10me 1,800 acres, we have made IUb.tlntlal long term capital lnvestruer'ltl In plant and equipment. Our ooncem Ia with lack of ....-.nee for the long term ltabllty and the ILnlval of the sand 

ax1n1ct1an ~ within the Wild & Scenic aystem. We cannot operate If left with 

vague leglalallon couched In ambiguous terms. Sand mining must be add....eect 

speclllcally and directly. 

H.R. 2850 ltatas on p.4, lne 22 that the pwposee of the act era to 

1) Dec:lere the Importance and Irreplaceable I'IIIICU'CI vaL. 

of the Mu1ce Rlvw and Ita trlbutarlee to watw qualty, 

tunen '-llh, DAnm-MaP'ftfOIIIC!AmVUW- -. 

Please note the lat three words abcMI; ttwv IR!!IIC !'J!ZWbn 11M In the bill In 

fact, a ...acing-of the entire bill reav. one wllh a distinct t.eing of bill against lndu*y. 

This 

~ 

Ia the cnblgulty of whid'l wa speak. We must lnsllt on Inclusion of altal8ment that 

the right of exllting mining operallon8 within the dellgnm.d ayam to 

canllnue to op4!nd8 •a.r ............... •. 
231 

We are further concerned that the Wild & Scenic legislation is brought to us by the 

same folks who gave us the Plnelands Commission. We bHrd. assurances from the 

Pineland's people in 1980 that mining was recognized as an important and historical land 

use within the Pinalands. From the beginning, however, the Pinalands Commission has 

sought to restrict mining activities. The latest Comprehensive Management Plan 

proposing amendments which would prohibit new mining operations within the forest 

area of the Pinalands reflects this attitude. This proposal is a compromise from the 

original draft which would have also greatly restricted existing mining operations within 

the forest area. Reoantly, the Assistant Director of the Pinelands Commission made the 

incredible statement that "The glass industry is indigenous to the Pinalands, willie die 

1'119111'91 g1IMdoA ,.....,_II Mt." For this reason, the legislation ~ clearly 

define traditional economic activities. Neither The Moria company nor any other mining 

company can commit resources to resolve the costly and time consuming conflicts that 

will surely arise unless the legislative language is clarified. 

The Bill further states that 'land use of regulations of the individual local political 

jurisdictions through which the river segments pass CANNOT ALONE provide for an 

adequate balance between conservation of the river's resources and commercial and 

industrial development. • This statement can hardly be construed to support the concept 

of home rule. At the public hearing at Buena Vista on July 26, 1993, Congressman 

Hughes' Representative, John Mzur, ajg that control and decisions would be left to the 

local municipalities. The legislative language suggests otherwise. 

In Tbe ........ Bh'erlllldiU ~ N.u-1 Wild B._.. BITer 

8CadJ' Dnlt BepcwC, May 1992, the Citizens' Task Force position on land use states 

that existing sand and gravel minas are compatible and recommends that they should 

continue operations in the development and conservation district of the Wild & Scenic 

corridor. The burden of proof as to whather new operations are compatible and will not 

adversely affect the environment will rest on the individual minars. But these are only 

recommendations and to data, there are no assurances that these recommendations will 

be implemented. The language must specifically allow existing operations in these areas 

to continue. The language "sboald .adaae operadoa8' is speculative and open to 

interpretation and "evolution. • 

~ 

The Local Mepepwaeort 1'11111 lor Tbe ManaolGe RPer aad IU 

July 1991, appendix B, compares existing municipal zoning and the river 

conservation zonas. In Maurice River, The Moria Company is presently located in the 

LG, M-1 and M-2 zones. As stated, Wild & Scenic would require additional restrictions 

on vegetation buffers, clearing restrictions and land uses currently described as 

•conditional uses. • We need to know exactly what these additional restrictions are so 

that we might understand their impact and acceptability to the mining industry. In 

addition, the language in the section describing the M-1 zone states that "conditional 

uses• would be restricted and pre-existing extraction activities would be grandfathered. 

This language is unclear. Are conditional land uses of pre-existing extraction activities 

grandfathared? The language will be adverse to mining companies if it is construed that 

land uses described as 'conditional uses" can be restricted even if they ar pre-existing 

and grandfathered. 

-2-
232 

l'tw Morle compeny phllolophy holds that ttwrela a compllllble ..,.._ bltwMn 

1he erMrOI ment lnd ecal10111ic growth and that bolh l"'led tD be ll'l8rlllged property. w. 

b.a.v. that 1he Wild & Scanlc legilldon lhould be UMd as a tool to prot.ct 1he 

«WW! onmaut and Dill• w.pon to deCoy tradlllonal eca~101111c: activity. W. wllltrtve 

tD lnlinlllin 1he ballnce. 

RGC:jm 

c:c: Congreasman Hughes 

Yours truly, 

THE MORIE COMPANY, INC. 

~~.Cr-1 

Robert G. Cook 

ExeaJtlva Vice~ 
233 

SOUTH .JERSEY GAS COMPAg 

VICE 

ALBERTY. 

PRESIOEWT. 

RUGGIERO L~ HUMAN RESOURCES July 30, 1993 

The Honorable William J. Hughes United States House of Representatives cannon House Office Building, Room 241 

1st & Independence Avenue, S.E. 

washington, DC 20515 

Dear congressman Hughes: 

South Jersey Gas Company urges you to re-consider the 

implications of your legislation that would designate the 

Maurice River and its tributaries components of the National 

Wild and scenic River system. 

While South Jersey Gas Company supports preservation of the 

Maurice River and its tributaries, we remain unconvinced that 

Wild and Scenic designation will provide any additional 

protection to the watershed beyond the existing federal, state 

and local land use restrictions. The areas slated to be 

included in the program are already regulated by over .10 

agencies and laws. We believe that the threats of explosive development within the Maurice River Watershed have been greatly exaggerated by proponents of Wild and Scenic designation. 

The Maurice River Local Management Plan developed by the 

Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development outlines some of the existing laws and agencies that restrict 

land uses in the watershed. According to the Management Plan, a portion of Vineland and large areas of Maurice River Township and Buena Vista Township are located within the Pinelands 

conservation area. As a result, these areas have revised their 

master plans and zoning ordinances to conform with the Pinelands 

Comprehensive Mana9ement Plan administered by the Pinelands 

Commission. The P1nelands commission wields "some of the 

strongest land use regulatory power in the country." 

commercial Township and portions of Maurice River Township and 

the Cit¥ of Millville are regulated by the Coastal Area 

Facilit1es Review Act (CAFRA) of 1978. As you know, the New 

Jerser Legislature recently amended CAFRA to make it more restr1ctive of development along waterways and beaches. These areas located within the Maurice River Wild and Scenic area have 

been classified as a Limited Growth Region. This rating allows 

for the lowest level of development among the thirteen growth regions established~for New Jerser's coastal areas. The Limited 

Growth Region is defined as conta1ning large environmentally sensitive areas where only infill development is acceptable. 

NUMBER ONE SOUTH JERSEY PLAZA. ROUTE 54, FOLSOM, NEW JERSEY 08037 I TEL 609-561·9000 
Rep. William J. Hughes July 30, 1993 

Page 2 

234 

In addition to CAFRA and Pinelands, the Maurice River area is 

also protected by the New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan. The State Plan desiqnates.most of the area located within 

the River Management Plan area as environmentally sensitive. As a result, state agencies will allocate little, if any, pUblic dollars for ~nfrastructure and other facilities in this area. 

The Maurice River Local Manaqement Plan also details other 

requlatory impediments to development in the plan area. Those 

include: 

- Wastewater Management Plan 

- Freshwater Wetlands Act 

- Coastal Wetlands Act 

- Endangered Species Act 

- Waterfront Development Rules 

-Clean Water Enforcement Act (N.J.) 

Aside from State and Federal agencies and acts, the local county soil conservation districts also play a major role in 

development oversight. Additionally, the local management plans developed by Cumberland-County and the affected municipalities already contain the tenants of the Wild and Scenic Program. Therefore, we believe the Maurice River ·area is under little 

pressure to handle a great influx of new development. 

On a final note, the River Mana9ement Plan develo~ed by Cumberland County (with the ass1stance of the Nat1onal Park 

Service) contains an interesting statement in the introduction. 

"This River Management Plan is the result of a desire by local 

governments to rely exclusively on local controls to manage the 

important river resources." We urge you to consider that 

statement and the other issues raised in this letter very carefully. 

Thank you for your consideration of our position on this vitally important issue. Please contact me at (609) 561-9000 should you have any quest~ons. 

Cordially, 
I!IINIST 1.. JOU. Y 

VICI'"I.OINT. 

IX'T'If'*'-.uJAIII 

IIGaorable l:nac:a J, Veato, C!lai~ 

•aUCIIIal Pvka ad Pllb11c Leada 

l~ttee of the .. Wl'al .. __ •• c-lttu 

A 112 O'J&lll SOU.I Office luildiaa 

Waahiqt.Oa, D.C. 20515 

235 

We requaat tbat tMa latter be aecapt.ecl u our tea~ npr:dlDa 

B.a. 26~0 and be -.de a part of the pUblic record. 

Ve ncopi .. tbe 1poo1or'• afforu ill dalipatas tbe Mauice l.i,.r 

Uld it• tdbut&ri•• into t!aa •aucmal Wil4 all lceaic l.bar ly1t.a. W. 111&re hie 

viliOD for protectina tbe 1111ique Uld rich lll\'lr-t of the Nauica Unr Uld 

tlw aun'OIIIIIliq aru. We baline t!aie leliaU.tioll will llalp to· eanR tllat our 

Dldcipalitiea will be ula to eajO)' ad blufit f~ our DAt!aaa1 ttunre for 

lmll' paenUosaa to - vbile ncopialDa tba ba1Dca for jolla _. c-.l.tJ' 

ilrwol...at. w. ~~eu ... t!la lll\'i~tal quality of tbJ.a ana 11 a te•"-t 

to t!aa ~tMDt of tba ..UcipaliUaa, llwliu•••• ad citiaaa ill protect.iq 

it• qualiU•• it;. the pa1t. 

R.I.. 2650 il a nviae4 bill t!aat reflacu aruur 1upport for 

~ty invol-t ill tba llllll&llllilllt of the Maurice Uver aa4 iU tributarlu. 

Accordilll ta t!la aponaor, -.-t of the dalipatell rinr ••...-u wlll \1a at 

the local level by c:ooperat!.n •1r._u lletnall tba lacnur, of IDurior a4 

local ..UcipaUU••· 'ftle1e coopant!n as~u will be coelieteat wit!! bot!! 

the local river -•-t pla1 (alr...S., a4opt.e4 by the llllllcipaUUal) ad tba 

CCIIIIpraballeha -.n&llllilllt plan. 

In aecaptill1 dasipaUOil, KillYilla, Villala4 ad c-rcial llave 

aprauad in t!aair neolv.t!oa1 a illtenlt ill praaanlq t!aa illUJrity of tba 

dpU-of..,.y of t!la llt!UU••· We bali"• tbat my Mallin plad.q t11a Maurice 

U,.r a4 ita tributedu lllldar t!la Wild a4 lceaic tinr IJI"- 1~ eaalll'e 

oar ability to provide ea4 •illtlln reliable utility aanlce to our cataar•. 

W.t.tbout. tllit racop.t.Uoa, our nlU.t.y to opanu aDd ...U.taill t!la naiOD'• .-r delivery IIJ'IU. ww14 '!Ia CCIIp~be4, .,_if t!aen b no advert& -i~tel 

!mpact to tba rapoa.. We -14 up tba c-Utea to adi:llowlellp tba aiatilla 

illfnlti'I&Ct.lln of the lltil!.tiaa ill or:der to ••ure Hie &llll nliabla utility aarvica, 

Atlantic City Electric Company 

8801 Black Hor~~ Plk1 

~ 

PIIUintvllle, N.J. 08232 
236 

A~lauc llec~dc beU~n• t!lat the quaU~ of thia •na ll ao Kelda~. 'nle llll&ic:i,.J.S.UIIo INiillallllo &114 eiUaal ll&ft lbow their c:a.itlaela~ to the proper ,..,. ...... ~ of Chi• ana. We believe thia PNPONl 

p1K11 I'&'U"J:' napOII.dblli~J' 011. til& federal I0\'8mllll~. We eDCOIU'all tile Pan 

SerYic:e to won cloaelJ with the CCIIIIIIDJ.Uea ill order to ... ~ tile allla of thia aru while napec:Uq the local tn&U.~i.OII.I &114 Y&laa. 

liDcenlJ, 

Vice ~ rnau.~ 

IXtamal Affaire 

elj rjv 
Timothy R. E. Kuney 

Commissioner 

237 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

79 .ELM STREET HAI.TFORO, CONNECTICUT 06106 

october 26, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

subcommittee on Natipnal Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands 

Rayburn House Office Buildinq 

Independence and South Capitol, s.E. Washinqton, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative ~ento: . 

Thank you for the oppQrtunity to offer stronq support for HR 

2815, The Farminqton Wild ~nd Scenic River Act. Governor 

Weicker, the members of the Connecticut General Assembly and the 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection all support desiqnation of the 14 miles of the Farminqton River immediately 

below the Goodwin Dam as part of the National Wild and scenic 

River System. The Farininqton River is a unique resource in 

Connecticut, providinq'some -9f the finest fish and wildlife 

habitats and recreational opportunities in the state, while 

meetinq needs for water supply and wast e assimilation. 

The Connecticut Seqment of the Farminqton has been found by the 

Farminqton River Study Committee to be eliqible for desiqnation 

based on the presence of outstandinq fisheries, recreation, 

wildlife, and historic resources. The Study Committee has also 

found the seqment to be suitable for desiqnation based on stronq state and local support for desiqnation and the adoption of an appropriate manaqement plan. 

The development of the manaqement plan was a key factor in 

qaininq state support for desiqnation. I have had the pleasure 

of representinq the Governor of connecticut on the Farminqton 

River Study Committee since its inception. In carryinq out this 

responsibility, one of my jobs has been to consider how 

designation would fit with our ongoing efforts to manage water and related natural resources and ensure the public health and 

safety of Connecticut ' s residents. current state resource manaqement and protection activities include water allocation and 

diversion permittinq, water supply, water quality and fish and wildlife and recreation management proqrams. 

o-.. ....--
Representative Bruce Vento 

~:b!r 26, 1993 

I aa convinced that:tbe ~Upper Farmin;ton River Managemant Plan• 

developed by the St~y Committee effectively balances the broader state management responsibilities for protecting public health 

and safety with the need ror river protection. A number of 

elements of the plan are significant to the state, and are described below. The plan: 

1) establishes a 100 foot ·araa on either side of the river as the focus of local land usa protection efforts for the river and 

the immediate riparian corridor. The four towns which border the 

study seqaent have adopted river protection districts through local zoning to ensure the appropriate management of privata lands. 

2) provides for maintenance and enhancement of the values which 

qualify the river for~tional designation, including water quality, recreational bse opportunities, fish and wildlife, 

historic resources and'scenic values. 

3) allows tor consideratio~ of future water supply withdrawals 

of up to 7.3 billion gallons per year, while maintaining the 

character of the river ~nd its wild and scenic values. 

4) requires a number of state statutory changes to assure the 

highest level of water quality protection. 

5) establishes a Farmington River Coordinating Committee (FRCC) to coordinate implementation of the plan. 

6) requires notification of the National Park Service and the 

FRCC of any actions requiring a state permit, and allows NPS 

intervention in uses, withdrawals or other actions within or affecting the segment which require state or federal permits, funding or approvals. 

The usa of a comprehensive instream flow study in the planning 

process has allowed the analysis of varying river flows to determine the water resource management regimes needed to protect and enhance the river. A significant provision of the plan, basad on this analysis, is the ability to consider future use for 

public water supply if it can be shown that such usa is not detrimental to the wild and scenic values. This provision allows us to fulfill our responsibility to provide pure and adequate supplies of drinking water to state residents should it become 

necessary in the future. 
Representative Bruce Vento 

page 3 

october 26, 1993 

239 

It .is my belief that implementation of the plan will enhance our ability to protect the river's wild and scenic values by allowing more public input into federal and state resource management 

programs. I fully support designation of the Upper Farmington 

into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and 

implementation of the Upper Farmington River Management Plan as the cornerstone for such designation. 

It is the intent of the State of Connecticut to work with the Federal Government, the communities in the region, local interest 

groups and the strong base of local support to ensure effective 

management of the Upper Farmington once it is designated. Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement of 

support for HR 2815. 

Sincerely yours, 

\<~'1{~ Robert Moore 

Deputy Commissioner 

Attachment 

RM:CJH:ch 
House Bill No. 6925 

PUBLIC ACT NO. 93-256 

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE 

FISHERIES C~MMISSION, FREE FISHING, HUNTING AND 

TRAPPING LI~ENSES FOR DISABLED PERSONS AND PERSONS 

SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER, THE QESIGNATION 

OF THE FABMINGTON~RIVER AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

AND THE STATE GEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY 

SURVEY SALES· AND PUBLICATION ACCOUNT. 

Be it enacted' by the Senate and House of Representati~s in ' General Assembly convened: 

Section 1. Section 26-300 of the general 

statutes is repealed and the following is 

substituted in lieu thereof: 

The [commission on intergovernmental 

cooperation] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION ~all . include in its budget the 

estimate of fupPs required by the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisherifs Co~mission, shall account for and 

disburse funds~appropriated to its use and shall 

include in its report a record of its activities. 

Sec. 2. Section 26-29b of the general statutes 

is repealed and the· following is substituted in 

lieu thereof: 

[No fee shall be charged for any hunting or 

sport fishing l~cense• issued under this chapter to 

any person with paraplegia or the loss of the use 

of both lower extremities. Any nonresident with 

paraplegia or the loss of the use of both lower 

extremities may procure such license without 

payment of a fee if he is a resident of a state 

the laws of which allow the same privilege to 

residents of this state.] NO FEE SHALL BE CHARGED 

FOR ANY HUNTING, SPORT FISHING OR TRAPPING LICENSE 

ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO ANY PHYSICALLY 

DISABLED PERSON. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 

A "PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON" IS ANY PERSON WHOSE 

DISABILITY CONSISTS OF THE LOSS OF ONE OR MORE 

LIMBS OR THE PERMANENT LOSS OF THE USE OF ONE OR 

MORE LIMBS. A PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON SHALL 

SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSIONER A CERTIFICATION, SIGNED 

BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN, OF SUCH DISABILITY. NO 

FEE SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY HUNTING OR SPORT 

FISHING LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO ANY 

PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT 

OF THIS STATE IF SUCH PERSON IS A RESIDENT OF A 

STATE IN WHICH A PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSON FROM 
241 

House Bill No. 6925 

CONNECTICUT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE FOR 

A HUNTING OR SPORT FISHING LICENSE. 

Sec. 3. Section 24-3 of the general statutes 

is repealed and the following is substituted in 

lieu thereof:' 

(a) Said;. commissioner shall cause to be 

prepared a report to the general assembly before 

each regular, . session of the same in the 

odd-numbered years, showing the progress and 

condition of the survey, together with such other 

information as. he deems useful or as the general 

assembly requires. The regular and special reports 

of the survey, with illustr~tions and maps, shall 

be (prepared f~r publication, and, when printed, 

the reports] PRODUCED FOR PUBLIC USE AND shall be 

distributed or sold by the commissioner as the 

interests of the state and of science may demand. 

(b) There is established a separate account 

within the gene~al .fund, to be known as the state 

geological and gatur~l history survey sales and 

publication acc~~nt, for the purpose of providing 

moneys for [the~ printing 1 PRODUCTION of [survey I 

ENVIRONMENTAL p~bli~ations and purchase, for 

resale, of related [maps and reports] MATERIALS 

AND PRODUCTS. All mon~ys obtained from the sale of 

such publications, [maps and reports] MATERIALS 

AND PRODUCTS shall be paid to the state treasurer 

and credited to ~aid ~ccount and the commissioner 

may expend moneys•of said account for the [editing 

and printing] PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION of such 

publications and the purchase, for resale, of such 

[maps and reports. Any moneys in excess of thirty 

thousand dollars remaining in said account at the 

close of any fiscal year shall revert to the 

general fund] MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS. ---1~~ Sec. 4. (NEW) (a) It is declared to be the 

policy of the state of Connecticut that the 

portion of the Farmington River which is the 

subject of the authorized study by the Farmington 

Wild and Scenic River Study Committee for purposes 

of desionation as a national wild and scenic 

rivers system be preserved as provided for in the 

federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 

90-542, as amended. 

(b) The commissioner of environmental 

protection shall cooperate with all relevant 

federal, state and local agencies to provide for 

such designation and to implement any management pl~n developed in accordance with the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. Upon the designation of the 

river segment by Congress, the commissioner shall 

-2-
242 

House Bill No. 6925 

notify the joint standing committee of the general 

assembly having cognizance of matters relating to 

the environment regarding any statutory changes 

necessary to implement the preservation and conservat~on of the river segment in accordance 

with the ~ederal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 

commissioner shall cause a copy of this section to 

be delivered to all United States Representatives 

and Senators ~representing Connecticut in the 

Congress of the United States. 

Sec. 5. Section 26-28 of the general statutes 

is repealed and the following is substituted in 

lieu thereof: . (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the 

fees for •firearms hunting, archery hunting, 

trapping and sport fishing licenses or for the 

combination thereof shall be as follows: (1) 

Resident firearms hunting license, ten dollars; 

(2) resident fishing license, fifteen dollars; (3) 

resident combination license to firearms hunt and 

fish, twent~-one ·dollars; ( 4) resident trapping 

license, twenty dollars; ( 5) resident junior 

trapping license for persons under sixteen years 

of age, thre~ dollars; (6) junior firearms hunting 

license, three dollars; (7) persons sixty-five 

years of age and. over who have been residents of 

this state for not less than one year and who meet 

the requirements of subsection (b) of section 

26-31 may be issu~d (an annual] A LIFETIME license 

to firearms hOnt or to fish or combination license 

to fish and firear~s hunt or a license to trap 

without fee; (8) nonresident firearms hunting 

license, forty-two dollars; (9) non resident 

fishing license, twenty-five dollars; (10) 

nonresident fishing license for a period of three 

consecutive days, eight dollars; (11) nonresident 

combination license to firearms hunt and fish, 

fifty-five dollars, and (12) nonresident trapping 

license, two hundred dollars. The issuing agency 

shall indicate on a combination license the 

specific purpose for which such license is issued. 

The town clerk shall retain a recording fee of one 

dollar for each license issued by him. 

(b) Any nonresident residing in one of the New 

England states or the state of New York may 

procure a license to hunt or to fish or to hunt 

and fish for the same fee or fees as a resident of 

this state if he is a resident of a state the laws 

of which allow the same privilege to residents of 

this state. 

-3-
243 

House Bill No. 6925 

Sec. 6. This act shall take effect July 1, 

1993. 

Certified as correct hi' . . -~ 

Legislative Commissioner . 

. . 

Clerk of the Senate. 

Clerk of the House . 

Approved -"----------------- . 1993. 

Governor, State of Connecticut. 

-4-
244 

american 

whitewater 

affiliation 

Hon. Bruce Vento 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, & Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

H1-812 O'Neill Building 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

October 25, 1993 

RE: H.R. 2815, FARMINGTON WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 

Dear Chairman Vento; 

Enclosed is testimony which I am today submitting for 

consideration by the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National 

Parks, and Forests regarding S. 1332, the Farming Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. 

If you have any questions regarding this testimony, I can be 

reached at 301-589-9453. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of our views. 

Sincerely, 

(]At ~ ""' .1\ -J. f)~f Richard J. Bowers 

Conservation Program Director 

Executive Office: P.O. Box. 85, Phoenicia, NY 12464 

(914) 688-5569 ® RECYCLED PAPER 
245 

TESTIMONY OF 

RICHARD J. BOWERS 

CONSERVATION PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFIUATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMilTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS 

AND FORESTS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. SENATE 

REGARDING 

S.1332 

THE FARMINGTON WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 

OCT27, 1993 

American Whitewater 

8630 Fenton St. 

Suite 910 

Silver Spring, Md 20910 

301-589·9453 
246 

The American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) would like to express our support for 

S. 1332, introduced by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. 

AWA'S CONSnTUENCY AND CONCERNS 

AWA is a national organization with a direct and affiliate membership of over 

30,000. Our mission is . to conserve America's whitewater resources and to 

enhance opportunities to safely enjoy them. Our membership is comprised 

almost entirely of noncommercial kayakers and canoeists who are involved in 

whitewater sports. 

The two key concerns of our members and of our affiliate clubs are 1.) the 

conservation of whitewater rivers and 2.) the enhancement of public river 

access. 

To further our conservation mission. We maintain a complete national inventory 

of whitewater rivers, monitor threats to those rivers, publish information on river 

protection, provide technical advice to local groups, work with government 

agencies, and --when necessary -- take legal action to prevent river abuse. 

REASONS FOR SUPPORnNG THE FARMINGTON BILL 

AWA is enthusiastic about S. 1332 for two reasons. First, the Farmington River 

is important to whitewater canoeists and kayakers in New England and 

throughout the country. 

Second, S. 1332 is a creative and extremely positive effort to use the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act to protect a river which flows largely through private lands. If 

successful for the Farmington, this approach could possibly be adapted to other 

private land rivers throughout the nation. Using this approach in the case of 

other private land rivers could significantly further the goai of river conservation. 

1. Significance of Farmington River for Whitewater Recreation 

The Connecticut segment of the Farmington River contains 20 miles of 

whitewater with class II or better rapids. The total whitewater river mileage in 

Connecticut is 107.7. (See Appendix A, Excerpt from Nationwide Whitewater 

Inventory). 

With 19% of the whitewater in Connecticut, the Farmington is an extremely 

important recreational resource ·to the people of Connecticut and neighboring 

States. While the section covered by H.R. 2815 is upstream of the famous 
247 

whitewater of the Tariffville Gorge (class III-IV), the covered section does offer 

class II whitewater in the Riverton area, providing an excellent opportunity for 

beginner and family-oriented trips. 

2. Solving the Special Problems of Private Land Rivers 

Approximately 55% of the frontage of the segment of the Farmington covered by 

S. 1332 is in private ownership. 

In the 25 years since the founding of the Federal wild and scenic system, it has 

proved increasingly difficult to include private-land rivers in the system. 

Recently, after an all-out battle with the Wise Use Movement, supporters of the 

Pemigewasset River abandoned (for now at least) their effort to obtain wild and 

scenic designation for that outstanding river. The Massachusetts segment of the 

Farmington (78% privately owned) is no longer a wild and scenic candidate for 

the same reason. (See Appendix B, May 19, 1992 Article from Appalachia 

Bulletin). The situation in New England is symptomatic of a more pervasive 

problem. 

Private land rivers present many complications for river conservationists. 

Landowners are concerned about property rights. Localities are concerned 

about the tax base. States are wary of Federal interference. The park service is 

not always capable of assuming any kind of management role for numerous 

disconnected ribbons of water flowing through privately owned riparian lands, far 

removed from any federal enclave. To top things off, because of its many 

vague and confusing provisions, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has become a 

special target of the wise use movement. 

For these reasons, the vast bulk of existing wild and scenic rivers have been 

carved out of national forests or other areas owned by the Federal government. 

90% of existing wild and scenic river mileage is within national forest, parks or 

other Federal land areas. 1 Almost every inch of riverside land on the 26 rivers 

added in Alaska and the 39 added in Oregon were Federally owned at the time 

of designation. Adding these rivers established a prohibition against harmful 

water resources projects but did not otherwise significantly affect river or land 

management. 

The scarcity of public lands in the eastern half of the United States puts eastern 

river conservationists at a disadvantage. In the 25 years since the inception of 

the wild and scenic rivers system 144 rivers have been added to the system. 

Only 41 of those are in the east (28% of the total). Most of these 41 eastern 

rivers are entirely within national forests or other existing Federal or State 

enclaves. 
248 

It is important that qualified private land rivers be included in the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers system at a faster pace than in the past. The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) has already licensed over 1 ,800 private 

hydroelectric power projects on rivers throughout the United States. z The 

growth and sprawl of population is generating increased demand for other kinds 

of water resource projects as well. Many of these are extremely damaging to free 

flowing rivers. 15% of the total river mileage in the United States has already 

been dammed and thousands of river miles are totally or partially dewatered by 

diversions and withdrawals.3 Many of these rivers had important scenic, 

recreational and ecological values. 

River recreation resources are increasingly scarce. For example, only 1% of the 

nation's total remaining free-flowing river mileage contains whitewater.4 Unless 

private land rivers can be brought into the wild and scenic system, or afforded 

some other kind of Federal protection, rivers with valuable scenic and 

recreational attributes will continue to be damaged or degraded at an 

unacceptable rate. 

River conservation groups are seeking alternatives to the wild and scenic 

system which can prevent water projects from continuing to damage free flowing 

scenic and recreational rivers. 

Unfortunately, there is currently no alternative to the wild and scenic river system 

available to protect important private land rivers from damage associated with 

FERC projects and other Federal or Federally assisted water projects. 

This means that, for rivers like the Farmington which are not completely 

surrounded by Federal or State lands, creative orovisions must be develpped to 

adapt the Wild and Scenic Act to the special circumstances presented by private 

land ownership. 

For these reasons, AWA supports S. 1332 without reservation. 

We support, in particular, the concept of providing the Farmington River 

Coordinating Committee with a key management role, the policy of not including 

the river in the national park system, the policy that lands along the river are to 

be managed by the land owners and not by the Federal government, the 

prohibitions on Federal land acquisition and the policy of not establishing distinct 

and limited boundaries. 

These policies could be included in the bill specifically (as they are now in 

subparagraphs (C)(iv), (E)(ii), (E)(iii), and (F)) or by reference to the 

management plan, but each is a critical and necessary element of the total 

package. 
249 

Enclnotea 

1. W.K Olsen, Speech at 1988 National Rivers Conference. 

2. Hydroeleclric Power Resouroee of the United States, FERC, 1988. 

3. W. K. Olsen, Appalachia, 1987. 4. P. Barrow, Nationwide Whitewater Inventory, 1988 
250 

APPENDIX A, EXCERPT FROM NATIONWIDE WHITEWATER INVENTORY 

~1~!~1-~~~~i ~1~1~!~1!~1!~1~1 6 

J liii!Jil Ill!~ I I! Jii!J!Jil!l!lil! 

d ai~ ai=i~ ~ ~ ai~i~ ~~ =i~!=!al~I~!J~! ! ~ i i ~ ~ i ~~ i i i i i i i i ~~ ~ '!-.: ~!~!~ ~ ~ ~!~!~ ~! :li:!i~i~!~i:!iai~i~ 

; '1'' ; ~ J "!l : : : : : : : : 

II I I al ~ B I l f & ~~ J I I Ill I I 

U l)l! l~i t iii! t ~ii il~ i i~ I iii 

lJ .iJ J1Ji J 1111!3 ~ 1i • ~J! ·i Ill,! l~ 1i a )i li I a 'i ~l]ii~ ~~ i ajli .. l aj tlll~i 

I

J:g :1l a111al ~ a1m1jJa~·~"J ]1l1A1J1~i1f!J1 :a:JJ:a::fJI'f:J:~;s : a:]j·lii ::&: ... ::: 

~~ ~l~l~ :r ~~!It 2 l! Jl~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

£ 

... 

I ll ll I :Ttlllll~l ... - ......_-=---~-~~___.:__.:.__;__.;_............_,.___._ _ ___, 
WHITEWATER RIVER 

CONNECTICUT & RHOD
252 

APPENDIX B,IIA Y 11, 1112 ARl1CU! FROM APPALACtiA BUUEnN 

ana '"c"• 

River Protection Derailed 

Massachusetts Property Owners 

Defeat Wild and Scenic Designation 

for Farmington River 

'C'EDERAL WILD AND SCE:OIIC 

r dcsianation oi <he Massachusetu 

ponioo of <he F:lrlninaton River was 

de(e3ted this wintu by an insursent 

movement of propeny owners. con- emed. juSlly or ooL tbat Uncle Sam 

.tod a hidden •Ieoda <hot would compromise lhe:r propcny riJhts. 

They forced speci~ town meetinrs 

in three Beri<sllire County towns. whe:e 

townspeople voted 10 rescind <heir ..,. 

lier support of Wild and Scenic 

dcsianation. 

Cooaressm1o lobo W. Olver. 0-

Amherst. •·as in favor of Wild and 

Scenic d«itDation. buc after tbe (IIWftS 

withdrew 1heir suppon. be withdrew 1 

his. Dosisnotioo is - 1 dead issue ill · 

MISSICbasetts. boniDc • suddoa ....... 

oe bean u. tbe riva--IIXICl'dilla .. : AMC R.eaioo1l Proarams Director ·,· 

Deaais Reaaa. At tbe same time, it 

appeon tlw daipciocl wiD be pasaed ! 

for tbe CODMCtic:ut side ol lbe ri-. ! 

Tbe riva- rises ill BatsiWe Coualy inc! I 

flows 1011tb iAio Coaoecticut, wbae It I naras cast aad empties into the ! 

c-ticut Riva-. . . 

Some eaviroameatal advocates II 

blame ouuide iallucaca. people lied 10 I 

natioaal laad ri&bll JS'OIIps like tbe I •wise -· -veiDCIK, far sprudlaa j lies IIDODJ IIIII scarifta people oat of 1 

their sappon for desico1tioo. (See I 

"Oettiaa Wise" ia the Mareb 1 

Appa/11di11 !M//crlll f<x - 00 tbe 1 

wise--> 

"Ptoppe ... bliadsidod by- ..,.. • • ,. Tad ...._ o( .... llerlaiWe ' 

Nmxai ~ Couadl, alocllland .

1

· 

-....,... '"Ibe l'edenl......-'s .,_,~ .. doolkiad<liXOte I 

libllllooL ....._ JIIOPOIIOW 111· il's I 10UP 10,.. 111e ......,. t11n1utb w1aea 

AICb a~ Jli006 prewils. • 

Pbilip Haffmaa. National Park . 

16 • Mq lftl • Appll.tdlla 1oo11o11a 

Sav;ce (NPS) pn>jca manaaer r.r lbe 

Fumiapa Wild aad Scooic smdy. 

...-. '"WbM hlppeaed ...... tbll ..... 

wen some laoda•oers ·..-bo JOl reol 

scored about sometbiaa tbey dida't 

uadcntaad. • be said. "They m~­

Slnled. IIIII came :11 il boslilc. • 

Local su.cc Re;Jreseacacive 

Orislopber J. Jlod&l<ins. ·..-bo abo supported desicaatioo, tal\"' 1 clilfcreot 

view. He says it wu the lte'N, muictive 

ZODiDJ reculatiODS proFOstd far tbe 

rivu's edp !hot l1U11C<I townspeople 

apiattbeidca. 

'"Ibe idea <lla scenic: river was llae 

wicb people. buc who:ll tlo..ac zonUtt law was·propoRCL an ur • >U<!dca it_., 

just a sceaic: river. they 'A'OR meslia& 

wicb tbeir propeny ri;im." HodJidas 

uiol This area bas • I on 1 tradition of 

resistiaa OU1Sidc iutlue:>c;:: ia caloaiAI 

limes a mob druve :·..-o of Jtloa 

Georp•s aaaJisvale:S fi'OIIllbe coun 

bouse ia Oreal Baniaatoo. 1r. 

Bertsbite rar-n pla,eoi a major rol• 

ill Sba}S' RcbeUiao. 

Tbe Fum.iai'OIIo Ia ia remoce vo Icy, is oac of New Eaclaad's me 

prisdae dvas aod a 1tablat for eod::: pml species. _. ..... lllld ...,.. : 

is abo • popallr playpvulll for •iii« 

watu aDd llatwlter peddlcn. Mo. 

families Ia the volley have .. lei th<c 

land far paeroticm. IIIII pord it j<i 

ous1y • they a-d their aw:r - th< 

doo 't.,... aoytbiac 10 dJoalo. 

w_.llldlorities 1a Hanlald. com: have coveted tbe p- -~• of '~ 

Fum.iai'O'I far :ran. ud tilt ,;..,, 

- llnacll Is already ~ "" . form I series ol reserYIIin. Over fo; 

yean ...,. the Hanfonl Mcuopoii: 

Disaiec c-aislloa ....... 10 oliH 

.... - ,_ ... -llaDdL .t -.Jd ... .,.._ciliated dtr 511<' 
a prime llshinc pounds IIIII blbilll for binls and mammals. 

In response co lbU dual. .. ~. 

IICDIIIIIU ID five river IOWU Ia 

COIIMCtlcuc came up wldl lbc Ides of 

desipalina !he river W"dd and Scenic 

by act ot Consress. as allowed by !he 

1968 Wild and Scenic Ri-s A&!. All 

dam and diversion projecu wcte puc on 

bold while lbe NPS performed lhe · 

cequiRCI designolion Sllldy, which eva). 

uaces river resources and devdops a 

locally based conservalioo suacegy. 

Last year. all five Connecticuc10wns 

endorsed WUcl and Scenic desipdon. 

When passed in Conpas. desiptiOD 

will forbid any wacer projects !hal have 

a sianificant nesotive impoct on wacer 

now or <tualil}' in lhe FarminJIOD. 

Meanwhile, on the MassachusetiS 

side ot !he line. thinas wae beaded in 

lbc same di=tion, but then, Sllddenly, 

lbc tides turned. It swted. many local 

people agree, in a meetina of the 

Sandisfield Plaanias Board, where a 

"zonioa overlay disaicl" - ooe of che 

ri- pro<ection ac1ions sugestcd, but 

DOC IIWidatecl, under W"dd and Scenic 

-wu beina discussed. 

A. number of local propert)' owoen 

bad tumed out to watch - aoythio& 

oew having 10 dO with land uoe restric· 

dou is watched very closely in these 

ILiJ1s - and they saw Huffinao of lbc 

Pork Service answeriaa all the <tUCJ- tioDs while the Plannina Board 

IIIOIIIbers sat silendy. 

M Alcer that, people started asldoa 

questioN," says Bubara Beaudry of 

Ocis, who eaded ap opposina WUd IDII 

Scenic desianadon and remaios conviDced that the coverameDt had a 

'1liddea •aeoda." 

Some of the people's <tUCStiOIIIwcte 

anawered by DOIIIWpp, wbo hails from tbc Upper Dela....,. Valley and led 1D 

UDsuccessful li&bt aaainst Wild aod 

Scenic desiJD&tioa dae. Rupp spoke oc the Otis School one December DiJht, 

and threw a &ODd scan: into people, 

tdliAa them thoc the W'dd and Sc:eoic 

Rivers A<:t pvc lho federal p>YCSDmelll 

buae powers o-lbeir laodboldiDp. 

Und<t Wild IDd SceDic, the federal aovemmeat .,. 1e11 you wbal co1« to 

pUle )'OUI' bouoe. bbid you from cutdo&· clown - on J11UC poopeny or roop1aciq ,...... sepdc ~ if it faDI, Rupp - lepOtted IS saylac by Be:aadry. 

253 

In !he CIIIC of die Farminaton Rivu, 

k 111ms out. all of lbese provisions hid beca writtea 0411. But proponcniS of 

desiJIIIIioft foaad il dilllcult 10 COUnter 

llupp's claiDII In the hysterical acmo- sphcR !hal prevailed. 

"Through their fear of 

change, they lost the best 

chance they had to keep 

things the way they are." 

-Philip Httffman, 

Natiorull Park' Service 

"Clearly Don Rupp was the sinaJe 

person who tumcd this uound," says 

Nathaa Frobliaa of the Farmiaatoa 

River Watetsbcd Association, a river 

protection &rOUP in suong support of 

W'd4 and Sccaic desianatioo. "He did 

it by pulliaa toccthcr innuendo after 

innueado to wuve the story that the 

federal aovemment is aut 10 dO people 

out of lbcir land and liOC &ive them a fair shake. It's an OUlrl&e." Notkes o( 

Rupp's speccb wm: seat out 10 IIIWIII· 

people statio& "your land is bciaa 

stOioa." A local11011p Clllcd FrieDds ot lho River wu f01111cd ro lc3d the effort 

10 stop Wild and Sccaic. 

HuiTmao said be wu astonished 10 

. see normally sk<pticll Yankees likeD ill 

by lho blandi"""'""' of OUtSiders, refus.. 

ia& 10 listeD to their ilciibbon w'bo 

suppl)IUd deslpwion. Robert Tansut. 

Sandisl!cld's ~vc ro the Wild 

and Sceaic study committee, wu 

defamed u a federalaacat, which the 

Park SeMce hasroacd 10 deny. 

Evca the word· of Congressmaa 

Olver 11 a public meedog was 110t sutfi. 

cicnt. Olver IDd Johasoa, in ao ope11 

letter, promised they wouldll't support 

aoy biD t1w allowed federal c:ontzol ot land or tlw made lbe valley port ol the 

National Park system. Allor rcpcaliDa 

ibat pledce several times 10 a bosdlc 

crowd ill die Otis SchooL and bearioa it 

seitcrued by - and federal olliciaJs 10 DO cft'cct. 01- seemed 10 sbruJ bis 

sbouJden IDd pvc ap. 

From that meetiac oa It was all 

downbW. Otis voted overwbelmin&IY 

THINaws 

.Caiasc Wild IIIII Scenic - ~ die 

Sandislleld - die Dal wak- clol- cr bill sdll IUOIII aJaiut desipwloa. 

llld Tollond ¥OtCd a few weeks law die 

same way. "We coulda' c lofll 11 tfOIInd." 

bmclltCd Frohllns. "because be lbPPI 

twisted the facts. We bad no oppxt1111iq 

to uantine the bullshit coldly, so we 

could sbow it foe wbot it is. lbe level of 

trust in this commuaity was shattered. 

At the meetina witll the coniP'cssmaa. 

three quarters of the people bad their 

minds made up. What could we dO?." 

"It's a dead issue In Massacbus<lts." 

concluded Reaan ot the A.MC. which 

uraed iu Connecticut aad Berkshire 

Chopler membets ro support the delis· nation. "I don't blame the people In lbe 

valley. They worked borcl for their piece 

of Ede4. and they take iu preservllioll very seriously. People didD't lalow what 

Wild and Sceait was. but they knew 

they didD't want anyone in conuol of 

thcirri.u." 

SO WHAT HAPPE."'S NOW? 1liE Connecticut saetcb of lbe river wUI 

be ptOlOCicd from aay sipilicaal diver· 

sion of water ooce W'dd and Sccaic io 

possed. 

Ill Mossac:lv,,_, a pcopoul ro dam 

the Fall River, a tributary of the 

FarminJIOD ill Otis. was squdchcd four 

ye:ors aao; the ccmpoay "'"' proposed 11 is DO longer listed irllho pboDe book. 

. But. Reaaa poiou out, the 

MISSIChuseas run ot river is DCC 1111 ot danaer. "If some aceacy wanted to 

Oood the vallcy, people wiD fi&bt il. but 

by !hat time it mlaht be 100 late. • be 

said. M ion& a I dam Of clivenioa ia 

Massachuoeas didn't atrec:t the river's 

now ill Connoclicut. it could be pamitIC!I. Repn said. "They really were bad," said 

Hui'Cmon of the Part Scnice. '"Jlvou&h their rear of change, they lost the best 

chance they had 10 tc.ep !hines th< way 

they are." 

FIOII!in& apced. 1bo very thin& 1hol 

lhoy fa<. !hoy have left tbemscl- open 

tn. They lost their besc chaoce "' lftYCIII Janel conde1MIIioD IS I teSUit of pojects 

they wiD DCC be able Ill SlOP·" 

-D<uos.n-. Berkshire Ea&Je kpon~r 

Appalochla lull4da • Mq U91• 11 
254 

TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID E. JENKINS 

DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY 

AMERICAN CANOE ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

REGARDING 

H.R. 2B15 

THE FARMINGTON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

American Canoe Association 

7432 Alban Station Blvd. 

Suite B-226 

Springfield, VA 221 50 

(703) 451-0141 
255 

The American Canoe Association would like to go on record as supporting 

H.R. 2815 establishing Wild and Scenic Designation for the Farmington 

River. 

INTRODUCTION 

The American Canoe Association (ACA} is a national organization with a 

direct and affiliate membership of 35,000. The ACA is both the oldest and 

largest paddlesports organization in the nation, and the only one dedicated 

to representing and serving all of America's 17 million recreational canoeists 

and other paddlers. Formed to advocate the responsible enjoyment of 

paddlesports, the ACA is concerned with issues related to waterway access 

for paddlers and the conservation and preservation of America's rivers, 

streams, lakes, coastal waterways and their surrounding environments. 

BASIS FOR SUPPORT 

ACA support for H.R. 2815 is based primarily on three important factors: 

0 The first and most important consideration in supporting wild and scenic 

designation is the resource itself. The Farmington River is an outstanding natural resource. One of New England's most pristine rivers, 

the Farmington possesses crystal clear water, magnificent scenery, and 

offers excellent canoeing and kayaking opportunities. 

0 Secondly, H. R. 281 5 establishes a valuable precedent in the application 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to rivers which flow primarily through 

private lands. 

° Finally, the river protection management plan prepared for the 

Farmington, in anticipation of possible Wild and Scenic Designation, is a 

model plan of cooperation among many diverse and often competing 

river and land use interests. 

THE FARMINGTON RIVER 

The Farmington River with its high water quality, excellent scenery, 

abundant wildlife, and wide variety of rapids, is a nationally significant 

recreational resource for canoeists and kayakers. An inventory of 

whitewater rivers conducted by the American Whitewater Affiliation found 

that the Connecticut section of the Farmington accounts for close to 20% 

of the total whitewater in the entire state. The fishing opportunities on the 

Farmington also provide a nationally significant source of recreation. The 

river's cool, clear waters support the best trout fishing in New England, and 

the river is considered a critical component of the Atlantic Salmon 

Restoration Program. 
256 

A MODEL FOR PRIVATE LAND RIVERS 

The Farmington Wild and Scenic River Act is unique in that it will establish 

Wild and Scenic designation to a segment of river that flows largely through 

private lands. Approximately 55% of the land fronting this segment of the 

Farmington River is privately owned. 

Since it was enacted in 1 968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has proven to 

be a valuable tool in the protection of river segments that flow through our 

nation's public lands. However, it has rarely been successfully utilized in 

the protection of rivers flowing largely through private land. The irony here 

is that it is usually the private land rivers that are most vulnerable to 

potential threats, and therefore in the greatest need of Federal protection. 

Most of our nation's private land rivers, regardless of their scenic or 

recreational qualities, are being seriously threatened by the pressures of 

expanding residential and commercial .development. Attempts to use the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect these rivers usually fall victim to local 

opposition. This local opposition often takes the form of landowners 

concerned about land use restrictions, local governments concerned about 

their tax base, and citizens concerned about anything involving the Federal 

government. 

H. R. 281 5 is unique in that it will afford Wild and Scenic protection to a 

private land river with the blessings and unqualified support of the local 

citizenry. This designation and the resulting management of the resource 

can establish an example of success that can be emulated nationwide, 

especially in the east where there is a scarcity of public lands. 

A NEW TYPE OF RIVER MANAGEMENT 

A management plan has been developed for the Farmington River in 

advance of Wild and Scenic designation. This plan represents the 

combined efforts of a diverse group of citizens and local governments 

uniting under the single purpose of protecting a valuable water resource. 

This management plan establishes a standard of cooperation between river 

and land use interests that needs to be duplicated all across our nation. 

The management plan itself appears to be a good one. By involving so 

many in the plan's creation, the Farmington River Coordinating Committee 

(FRCC) has assured a strong commitment to its success. Localities have 

established strict zoning regulations designed to protect the resource. The 

plan does not allow for federal condemnation or acquisition of lands for the 

purposes of Wild and Scenic designation; instead, it relies on the local 

commitment to protecting the resource already exhibited by the development of the plan and the agreements contained therein. All of the towns 

responsible for lands along the river have passed separate resolutions 

committing themselves to the river's protection. As an added safeguard the 

plan establishes certain reporting requirements by the FRCC and the 

National Park Service regarding the status of the river designation. 
257 

The enactment of the Farmington Wild and Scenic River Act is essential to 

ensure that this plan, a plan that has brought together so many for the 

protection this magnificent river, is to be carried out. 

CONCLUSION 

The Farmington River, like many other private land rivers across our nation, 

is a nationally significant natural resource. The greatest value of these 

rivers to the citizens of America lies in our ability to protect them. 

For too long protection of private land rivers has been a problematic and 

frustrating experience to those who value the natural values of these 

resources. More tools must be developed to conserve and protect these 

rivers. H.R. 2815, in its creative application of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, provides one such tool. 

For all the reasons stated above, and in recognition of the Farmington 

River's value to our organization as a venue for canoeing and kayaking, the 

American Canoe Association supports H.R. 2815 without reservation. 

0 

76-068 (264_) 


ISBN 0-16-043601-X 

90000 

9 7801