[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] H.R. 1963 ======================================================================= LEGISLATIVE HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS of the COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ October 16, 2001 __________ Serial No. 107-68 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house or Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-725 WASHINGTON : 2002 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Tom Osborne, Nebraska Jeff Flake, Arizona Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota Mark E. Souder, Indiana Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on October 16, 2001................................. 1 Statement of Members: Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delagate to Congress from the Virgin Islands............................................. 3 Costello, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, Prepared statement of................... 2 Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State of California.................................... 1 Prepared statement of.................................... 2 Statement of Witnesses: Coomer, Bob, Superintendent of Historic Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois........ 6 Prepared statement of.................................... 7 Letter from The Honorable George H. Ryan, Governor, State of Illinois, submitted for the record.................. 8 Soukup, Dr. Michael, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 3 Prepared statement of.................................... 5 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1963, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE ROUTE TAKEN BY AMERICAN SOLDIER AND FRONTIERSMAN GEORGE ROGERS CLARK AND HIS MEN DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO CAPTURE THE BRITISH FORTS AT KASKASKIA AND CAHOKIA, ILLINOIS, AND VINCENNES, INDIANA, FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM. ---------- Tuesday, October 16, 2001 U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands Committee on Resources Washington, DC ---------- The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Radanovich. Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. We have two panels that were scheduled to speak. Unfortunately, the Honorable Jerry Costello from Illinois is stuck in a plane somewhere between Illinois and Washington, D.C. And so won't be able to meet. So, we are going to have to dispense with Panel 1 and go straight to Panel 2 after the introductory remarks. We will begin the Subcommittee on National Parks. Recreation and Public Lands to hear testimony on H.R. 1963. H.R. 2238, introduced by Congressman Harold Rogers, was originally scheduled for consideration today but it has been rescheduled for this Thursday, October 18th. H.R. 1963 introduced by Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of including the route taken by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War as an addition to the National Trails System. The mission of William Rogers Clark and his men in 1779 led to Britain ceding what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of Minnesota. William Rogers Clark was the elder brother of William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame. [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:] Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommitee on National parks, Recreation, and Public Lands Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on H.R. 1963. H.R. 2238, introduced by Congressman Harold Rogers, was originally scheduled for consideration today, but has been rescheduled for Thursday, October 18. H.R. 1963, introduced by Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of including the route taken by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War as an addition into the National Trails System. The mission of William Rogers Clark and his men in 1779 led to Britain ceding what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of Michigan. William Rogers Clark was the elder brother of William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame. I want to thank Congressmen Costello for introducing this bill and look forward to today's testimony. At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Costello be permitted to sit on the dias following his statement. Without objection [PAUSE], so ordered. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify on this bill, and now turn the time over to the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen. ______ Mr. Radanovich.I want to thank Mr. Costello for introducing this bill and at the same time ask unanimous consent that Mr. Costello be permitted to enter his remarks in the record. If there is no objection, then so ordered. [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] Statement of the Honorable Jerry F. Costello, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Christensen. I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1963, legislation I introduced to authorize a study to include the path taken by George Rogers Clark into our National Trails System. George Rogers Clark was born in 1752, the second oldest of ten children, and the older brother of William Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame. During the Revolutionary War in 1778, Clark led his troops from Redstone, PA to Kaskaskia, IL, which is in the Congressional District I represent. They surprised Kaskaskia on the night of July 4, 1778 and occupied the fort and town without a single shot being fired. Clark offered the French settlers in Kaskaskia the privileges of American citizenship, and won the support of the French in region. He also won the neutrality of the Native Americans. This support was key as Clark led his troops on the final leg of their journey, as they moved to overtake the British in Vincennes, Indiana. Banking on the element of surprise, Clark led his troops across what is now the State of Illinois, from Kaskaskia to Vincennes. The journey would normally take between five and six days, but because of the freezing flood waters, the journey took 18 days. At times in icy water up to their shoulders, it was Clark's determined leadership that led his men through the incredible midwinter journey. Once arriving in Vincennes on February 23, 1779, Clark and his men forced the British to surrender just two days later on February 25, 1779. As a result of Clark's outstanding military achievements, the British ceded a vast area of land to the United States, which is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and a portion of Minnesota. His actions were paramount in the establishment of the upper Midwest. The designation of the George Rogers Clark Trail would pay homage to an American hero who is infrequently recognized for his contributions to American history. The designation would also promote tourism in three of Illinois' State Historic Sites, and draw visitors to retrace Clark's historic path. Tourism is a growing and very important industry to Southern Illinois, and establishing a National Trail would be highly beneficial to the region. I strongly support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in authorizing a study to designate the route of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War for study for potential addition to the National Trails System. ______ Mr. Radanovich. I would like to call the witnesses forward today on Panel 2. We have Michael Soukup who is the Associate Director of the Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Division of the National Parks Service. Good morning, Michael. And also Bob Coomer, who is the Superintendent of Historic Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois. And forgive me. Please excuse me, Donna. I would like to give time to the Ranking Member to make some remarks before you begin your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly wanted to at least make some opening remarks, since I am going to have to leave the hearing to open up another briefing. Today, as you have indicated, we will have testimony on H.R. 1963 introduced by our colleague, Mr. Costello. The legislation provides for a study of the route used by George Rogers Clark and his troops during the military campaign of 1778 and 1779 in what is now Illinois and Indiana. The military campaign conducted by George Rogers Clark is regarded as an important event in the Revolutionary War. The purpose of the trails' study authorized in H.R. 1963 would be to determine whether portions of the route used in that campaign meet the criteria for designation as a Natural Historic Trail. I understand that the administration's testimony will recommend that the study be expanded to include an entire route of the military campaign, which seems to be a reasonable and logical request for this Subcommittee to consider. I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today. I promise you I will read your testimony. I am sorry that I do have to leave to attend another briefing. If I can get back, I will. Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mrs. Christensen. Are there any remarks from anybody else on the Committee? Mr. Hefley, any remarks? Mr. McGovern? No. Okay, thanks. With that, then, we will go ahead and start with the panel. We will begin with Mr. Soukup. Thank you and welcome back to the Committee. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SOUKUP, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Soukup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to present the Department of Interior's views on H.R. 1963. This bill would amend the National Trails Systems Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the route used by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forces at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, Illinois and Vincennes, Indiana as a potential addition to the National Trails System. The Department supports H.R. 1963 with an amendment to clarify the boundary of the area to be studied. However, in light of the President's commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the national park system, we will neither request funding for this study in this fiscal year, so as to focus available time and resources on completing previously authorized studies, nor be able to begin the study until at least fiscal year 2002. There are 39 authorized studies that are still pending and we only expect to complete a few of those this year. Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future of our national parks, we believe that the studies should carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each alternative considered. Additionally, our support for this study legislation should not be interpreted to mean that the Department would necessarily support designations that may be recommended by the study. H.R. 1963 calls for the completion of a study of the George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail. This trail traces the water and overland route of 1778 and 1779 expedition of Lieutenant Clark and his Virginia militia against the British in which he captured the British forts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia in what is now Illinois, and twice captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana. In 1778 Clark led a campaign into what became the Northwest Territory and captured the British post at Kaskaskia and Cahokia on the Mississippi River, and Vincennes on the Wabash River, although British forces from Detroit successfully recaptured the fort at Vincennes late in 1778. In February of 1779, Clark marched with about 170 men across 180 miles of frozen flooded plains, at times wading in icy waters reaching their shoulders, to recapture the fort at Vincennes. The mission took 3 weeks and is regarded as one of the boldest in American history. As a result of this campaign, Clark assured American control of the Northwest Territory, a region that would include the States of Ohio and Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and a portion of Minnesota. In April 1989, at the request of former Congressman Glenn Poshard, the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service prepared a preliminary assessment of whether the routes of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War would qualify for study as a Natural Historic Trail. Based on the available information, the assessment concluded that the routes taken by Clark in 1778 to 1779 may meet the criteria for National Historic Trails. The next step would be for Congress to authorize a study to determine if the route indeed met the criteria and whether it would be suitable and feasible for establishment as a National Historic Trail. The 1989 assessment suggested that if a formal study is authorized, that it would be appropriate to include not only the portions of the campaign that took place in what is now Illinois and Indiana, but also Clark's route down the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers from the point of origin near Pittsburgh. We recommend that H.R. 1963 be amended to clarify that the boundaries of this study will include Clark's entire route from near Pittsburgh to Vincennes. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Soukup. [The prepared statement of Mr. Soukup follows:] Statement of Dr. Michael Soukup, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on H. R. 1963. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the route used by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, as a potential addition to the National Trails System. The Department supports H. R. 1963 with an amendment to clarify the boundary of the area to be studied. However, in light of the President's commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System, we will neither request funding for this study in this fiscal year, so as to focus available time and resources on completing previously authorized studies, nor be able to begin the study until at least fiscal year 2003, as there are 39 authorized studies that are pending, and we only expect to complete a few of those this year. Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future of our national parks, we believe that studies should carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each alternative considered. Additionally, our support of this study legislation should not be interpreted to mean that the Department would necessarily support designations that may be recommended by the study. H. R. 1963 calls for the completion of a study of the George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail. This trail traces the water and overland route of the 1778 and 1779 expedition of Lieutenant Colonel George Rogers Clark and his Virginia militia against the British in which he captured the British forts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia, in what is now Illinois, and twice captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana. George Rogers Clark was one of the prominent figures of the American frontier. Born in Virginia in 1752, he migrated to the wilderness beyond the Appalachians in 1772. By 1775 he had gained a position of leadership in the Kentucky region. In 1778, Clark led a campaign into what became the Northwest Territory and captured the British posts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia on the Mississippi River and Vincennes on the Wabash River, although British forces from Detroit successfully recaptured the fort at Vincennes late in 1778. In February of 1779 Clark marched with about 170 men across 180 miles of frozen, flooded plains, at times wading in icy waters reaching their shoulders, to recapture the fort at Vincennes. The mission took three weeks and is regarded as one of the boldest in American history. As a result of this campaign, Clark assured American control of the Northwest Territory - a region that would include the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and a portion of Minnesota. In April of 1989, at the request of former Congressman Glenn Poshard, the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service prepared a preliminary assessment of whether the routes of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War would qualify for study as a National Historic Trail. Based on available information, the assessment concluded that the routes taken by Clark in 1778-1779 may meet the criteria for National Historic Trails. The next step would be for Congress to authorize a study to determine if the route indeed meets the criteria and whether it would be suitable and feasible for establishment as a National Historic Trail. The 1989 assessment suggested that if a formal study is authorized that it would be appropriate to include not only the portions of the campaign that took place in what is now Illinois and Indiana, but also Clark's route down the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers from the point of origin near Pittsburgh. We recommend that H. R. 1963 be amended to specify that the boundaries of the study will include Clark's entire route from near Pittsburgh to Vincennes. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. ______ Mr. Radanovich. We will go on to the testimony of the next witness and then open it up for questions. Mr. Coomer, welcome to the Committee and please begin your testimony. STATEMENT OF BOB COOMER, SUPERINTENDENT OF HISTORIC SITES, ILLINOIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS Mr. Coomer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. A George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail would authentically mark and appropriately commemorate a series of especially important heroic episodes that occurred during the western phase of the American Revolution. In the summer of 1778, George Rogers Clark was a 25-year- old captain in the Virginia militia when he planned and then boldly launched an expedition to seize control of Great Britain's western empire. Clark gathered volunteers near the site of Louisville in the present State of Kentucky, floated his small army on flatboats down the Ohio River, and landed with 175 men at the southern tip of what is now the State of Illinois. After a grueling 6-day overland march, Clark and his men reached the Mississippi River village of Kaskaskia on July 4th of 1778. With a population of about 1,000, Kaskaskia was the largest of several old French towns across from what is now St. Louis. The village had been abandoned by its British garrison and Clark occupied it without firing a shot. Assisted by Kaskaskia French residents, he and his men then managed to occupy other small villages on the Mississippi, including Cahokia. A party also was sent to Vincennes, which again fell to the Americans without resistance. Clark's victory is especially significant as the first American success against the British Empire in the West. The British struck back in the fall of 1778 with a counterexpedition from Detroit that recaptured Vincennes. Realizing that he must act or be cut off from his eastern sources of supply, Clark mounted an expedition against the British at Vincennes. On February 5th, 1779, he left Kaskaskia with a force of about 150 men, and embarked on an 18-day forced march to Vincennes across what is now southern Illinois. The march has been described as the one of the most heroic and dramatic in the annals of the American Revolution. Clark and his men spent days wading through the icy waters that covered the prairies in places, and passed their nights on knolls protruding from the surrounding mud. They covered 180 miles altogether, the last few miles in water up to their shoulders, and attacked the fort at Vincennes in the middle of the night on February 23rd. Two days later the British surrendered. Some historians have argued that without Clark's exploits, England might not have ceded the entire Northwest to the United States when the peace treaty that ended the revolution was signed in 1783. At the very least, George Rogers Clark and his men struck a heroic blow for American independence that would be most appropriately commemorated by the designation of a George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail. Establishing such trail in Illinois would greatly benefit programs and promote events that are associated with State historic sites including Fort Kaskaskia, Fort de Chartres and Cahokia Courthouse State Historic Sites. The trail would also provide opportunities for Illinois communities to establish interpretative programs to educate and attract visitors. In addition to the historic interpretative opportunities, the economic impact associated with tourism and historic site visitation is very important to this region of Illinois. More than 40 percent of the visitors surveyed in Illinois report their first interest has been historic sites, programs, and events. The George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail in Illinois will help preserve history and provide economic support for this region of southern Illinois. With that I conclude my comments, and will be more than happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Coomer follows:] Statement of Bob Coomer, Superintendent of Historic Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois A ``George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail'' would authentically mark and appropriately commemorate a series of especially important and heroic episodes that occurred during the western phase of the American Revolution. In the summer of 1778, George Rogers Clark was a 25-year-old captain in the Virginia militia when he planned and then boldly launched an expedition to seize control of Great Britain's western empire. Clark gathered volunteers near the site of Louisville in the present state of Kentucky, floated his small army on flatboats down the Ohio River, and landed with 175 men at the southern tip of what is now the state of Illinois. After a grueling six-day overland march, Clark and his men reached the Mississippi River village of Kaskaskia on July 4, 1778. With a population of about 1,000, Kaskaskia was the largest of several old French towns across from what is now St. Louis. The village had been abandoned by its British garrison, and Clark occupied it without firing a shot. Assisted by Kaskaskia's French residents, he and his men then managed to occupy other small villages on the Mississippi, including Cahokia. A party also was sent to Vincennes, which again fell to the Americans without resistance. Clark's victory is especially significant as the first American success against the British empire in the West. The British struck back in the fall of 1778 with a counter- expedition from Detroit that recaptured Vincennes. Realizing that he must act or be cut off from his eastern sources of supply, Clark mounted an expedition against the British at Vincennes. On February 5, 1779, he left Kaskaskia with a force of about 150 men and embarked on an 18-day forced march to Vincennes across what is now southern Illinois. The march has been described as Tone of the most heroic and dramatic in the annals of the American Revolution.'' Clark and his men spent days wading through the icy waters that covered the prairies in places and passed their nights on knolls protruding from the surrounding mud. They covered 180 miles altogether, the last few miles in water up to their shoulders, and attacked the fort at Vincennes in the middle of the night on February 23. Two days later, the British surrendered. Some historians have argued that without Clark's exploits England might not have ceded the entire northwest to the United States when the peace treaty ending the Revolution was signed in 1783. At the very least, George Rogers Clark and his men struck a heroic blow for American independence that would be most appropriately commemorated by the designation of a ``George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail.'' Establishing a George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail in Illinois would greatly benefit programs and promotion of Fort Kaskaskia, Ft. de Chartres and Cahokia Courthouse State Historic Sites. The trail would also provide opportunities for other Illinois communities to establish interpretive programs to educate and attract visitors. In addition, to the historic interpretation opportunities, the economic impact associated with tourism and historic site visitation is very important to this region of Illinois. More than 40% of visitors surveyed in Illinois report their first interest is historic sites and programs. The George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign trail in Illinois will help preserve history and provide economic support throughout Southern Illinois. ______ [A letter attached to Mr. Coomer's statement follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5725.001 Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Coomer. Mr. McGovern do you have any questions at all? No. Mr. Hefley? Mr. Hefley. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the trail like now? I mean if we do this, would this be a trail designated along highways or county roads or what? There is obviously no--no designated trail at this point. Mr. Coomer. There is not a trail currently marked. From information that I have researched there are--the clear designation of the trail, there are three areas that have been identified. This is something that as a part of the study should be researched further. My feelings are it would pass in association with State routes or Federal highways linking really the southern part of Illinois near Fort Massic near what is Metropolis, Illinois, over to Kaskaskia and then back across the south central part of the State through to Vincennes, but would follow, as you say, State routes or Federal highways. Mr. Hefley. So basically it wouldn't be like a trail system in the West where people get on horseback and ride the trail or hike it or bike it. It wouldn't be that kind of trail. It would be a trail which had historical markers along the way of a highway? Mr. Coomer. I believe it could be either. And the study I think would probably provide that sort of support. But I might--in keeping with other trails that are being established in this region of Illinois, it would probably be very closely aligned to those. Mr. Hefley. Certainly Mr. Clark's exploits are worthy in history; it is an important thing. But you know, I am reminded that in practically every square foot of America it seems there is a likelihood somebody fought some kind of battle for some reason on it. How does the Park Service--we flood you with these requests for these studies, and part of the reason is that it is important to people back home. But part of the reason is that it is--the things that really should be a part of our park system we want in the park system and the genuine historic and national phenomena that are out there that we want to preserve. How do you all look at it? If we ask you to do a study, do you interpret that as meaning this is something Congress wants so we better justify it? Or do you look at it as, well, you know, if it doesn't have the significance of something else--my great grandfather joined the Illinois Calvary in the first year of the Civil War. Maybe we should designate the trail he took from Illinois to southern Missouri where he was captured before the end of the first year. Didn't have a glorious career, but it was important to the Hefley family. That is probably not something we ought to put in the park system. So do you come back to us sometimes and tell us, no, we really don't think this ought to be in the parks system? How do you look at it? Mr. Soukup. Yes, sir. We do have that problem. And we do have a mechanism for trying to be objective and fairly clinical about making these decisions. We have established criteria--we have three major criteria that look at the historical significance as well as the feasibility and the practicality of such a designation. So we have been, I think, fairly rigorous in applying the criteria across the board. And sometimes we do come back and say it should have some other kind of designation; perhaps not a national park, perhaps a local or State or county site for a level of significance that might be at the local or county level. The utility of the 1989 study I think is important here. We did the preliminary look at measuring up this site against the three major criteria that we use. And the site was recommended to be appropriate under these criteria. Now, the second step, which H.R. 1963 puts us into that step--that is, we would then look how feasible it is and whether or not it makes sort of economic and logistical sense. And, you know, the first question that you ask: Is the site intact enough or is the trail intact enough? Those kinds of questions will be studied after this legislation is passed, if it should be passed, and those decisions will be looked at very, very intensely with a lot of stakeholder interest and things like that. Mr. Hefley. Well, I hope the Park Service would level with us on this, because you are the experts and you know much better than we do sitting here whether something really fits and whether it really is feasible. I think these kinds of things add to the mosaic of our country. I remember my father was a great historian, and when we would go on vacation trips--and I can't tell you the number of times the brakes went on and we swerved to the side of the road to read a historical marker because we might miss something. But that was good. That was the--that enriched the trips. And so I think these things are good, but I want them to be significant. I want them to be things that really do make sense in the Park Service. And you can tell us that. So I appreciate your coming today. Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Ms. Solis. Ms. Solis. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just if you could go through the three criteria, please. Mr. Soukup. I think that I have them here. Let me read them out to you. I thought that I had them here. Here they are. The first criteria: Was the trail established by historic use and is it historically sufficient as a result of that use? Is the trail's location sufficiently known to permit evaluation of public recreation and history interest potential? Second criteria. Is the route of national significance with respect to any of the several broad facets of American history, including military campaigns? Has the historic use of the trail had a far-reaching effect on broad patterns of American culture? And, No. 3, does the route have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interest based upon the historic interpretation and appreciation? Ms. Solis. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on this. This kind of spurs some ideas I might have for a trail that we would like to see done in our area. But I am sure that this is worthy of recognition. Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Souder. Mr. Souder. I guess I have a couple of questions and a few comments. I appreciate you holding this hearing. As for Congressman Hefley, I wanted to point out that the only place where we do trails for people like your grandpa is in the West. If it is a Civil War site, then we will do it on an individual basis. In the Midwest we seem to have a different battle going on, and I kind of am a broken record on some of this, but it is a frustration. The Park Service said no to us on the Lincoln site in Springfield. The Park Service said no to us on the underground railroad site in Cincinnati, basically because there were powerful people that wanted it in New York State. They said no on the Reagan boyhood home. Most of the noes we have received in this Committee have been in the Midwest. It is partly because in the Midwest we haven't federalized most of the land. In the West, a lot of the land is federalized; therefore, relatively more pristine conditions. Some of these things were for a variety of reasons. But those of us in the Midwest--and sometimes I get frustrated because our history actually in some cases is earlier, at least contemporaneous, depending on what type of site we are looking at. But often we haven't preserved it as well. So in some of the ability to utilize the sites, it is a different mix than they have in the West. But it is clear that in the Midwest we have a couple of holes and this is one of them. That the war in the West in the American Revolution was critical, that had we not won, particularly at Vincennes and been able to hold it, lose it and get it back, that the whole next round, which was the Northwest Territory, would not have happened. I have been working on an additional study where we already have several history sites, like in this trail there are historic sites anchoring the ends that--on Anthony Wayne's battles where the two largest defeats of American armies have occurred, the Harmar and St. Clair defeats. We hear a lot about Sitting Bill and all of these guys in the West where maybe 75 or 150 people were killed. Here you had armies of 800 and 1,600 being wiped out and couldn't control the Northwest. Just like the underground railroad, certain highways. One of my questions is, does the National Park Service, when we propose the trails, do you look at overall gaps in the system, in other words; or is it predominantly driven by what we come up with and then you analyze it in that way? Mr. Soukup. Well, I think we are beginning to realize that there are larger themes that sort of need flushing out. And I think you will see a lot more emphasis in our studies these days on the entire picture of things, and perhaps this would fit in. I think this would, by any criteria--I think if it meets this criteria it would be fine. But there is a lot of emphasis now on providing a larger picture. The underground railroad is a good example. There are very few individual sites that are very intact and demonstrable, but the entire theme is an important one. And again, I think you will see a lot of deference given to that larger picture kind of thing in the future. Mr. Souder. For example, this summer I both went the Sante Fe Trail and also the Great Platt River Road. It is fascinating. But for the most part you can't stay on the trail all of the way. Some of the sites are better preserved and some need better preservation. But in the West, literally, when you start to look at our trail system map, they are all over the place. In the Midwest, there are clear gaps as far as the historical significance of which this would help cover. But when you will look at a trail, in this case I believe the drafting of it is fairly tightly defined around the crucial first campaign that actually was the most significant, because if he hadn't won the first one--kind of the remnants of the battles that occurred thereafter and the jockeying for position of the next few years. You have referred to a study that suggested that the trail might start in Pittsburgh. You can also argue that the trail shouldn't end at the first battle at Vincennes, because Clark didn't just disappear after that point. Do you think it makes more sense to have tightly defined trails like this one was, where, okay, here are the three places, it is a given year, and you have a construct; or do you think it is best to start with the origins; or does that vary by type of trail? Mr. Soukup. Well, that is--. Mr. Souder. In other words, like the Oregon Trail, Lewis and Clark Trail. Clearly, in Indiana we want the site where William Clark started. Virginia wants Monticello included. But, for example, in the California Trail or the Mormon Trail, do you start back where they started, go to the start of the trail, or how do you determine where the trail starts? Mr. Soukup. That is the art of the study that we will do. And I think it will look at a bunch of--a range of alternatives. And historians qualified in this kind of assessment will take these questions and parse them through in great detail and come back with a series of alternatives that would then, you know, be something that Congress could take a look at and decide which one they favor. You can do it many different ways. And the historic fabric that is left and the tangible trail areas and things like that, all of that will sort of be looked at and evaluated as feasible alternatives. Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one other question? I know my time is up. I have had some concern as I have looked at the trail system and would hope that maybe the Park Service could come back to us with some sort of a recommendation. Internally you have to have some thoughts like this. But it looks to me--this came up in some of the western trails, that what happens is people start going a certain direction, they hear of another angle and they start off on that angle; then that gets really muddy, so they went over this way. And pretty soon your trail has many--it is all over the place, with a proliferation of roads by it. Is there a way that we can say, for example, if we did this: that there is the primary concentration and the one of greatest significance, and then there are auxiliary parts. In other words, Pittsburgh, where Clark gets organized to the launching point may be an auxiliary; then you have the primary, and then you have the follow-up. So that there are some-- politicians wouldn't like that, they would all like to have be primary. But some sort of acknowledgment of what was the key thing of national historic significance and what were the things that kind of pre- and post- led to that?. Mr. Soukup. That is what the historians will do. And whether or not the beginning of the expedition at Pittsburgh, it would seem to me that that would be part of the whole package, that you would really want to highlight the designation. But there will be a tremendous amount of discussion of what really is the event, what is significant about it, and what would be the alternatives; to present that to the American public in the larger context. Mr. Souder. Because, for example, there you may have a site, but not a trail; a site that leads as a preliminary and sites after, but the trail would be the thing of the period where it was most nationally significant, not the--otherwise from Pittsburgh to southwest Illinois--I mean, have you got a whole other proliferation of things that really weren't significant during that transit point, when the army was marching that was significant in the transit point. Mr. Soukup. I think it can be done in a fashion that highlighted the expedition which is a major event, as far as I can tell, and also lead people to the ancillary events and things that would be something that would be important but not really detract from the idea this is a trail established on this historic event. All of those things will be looked at over a period of years with historians and local stakeholders and things like that. I think the product will be something that we can take forward in Congress. Mr. Souder. I would hope, too, that the Vincennes, the Clark National Historical Park, and other sites in Illinois that are already part of the park system would be the anchors. That is one way to not have cost overburden our system is to use our existing structures in conjunction with that and not have a proliferation of lots of costs as we do these type of things. Mr. Soukup. The ends are done. And now there is an opportunity to put it together and get some sense of the magnitude of the event. Mr. Souder. I want to thank Mr. Coomer for his leadership. Without the help of State agencies and locally driving these things, they would never happen. So thank you for coming today and being part of this, and Mr. Costello and others for their leadership. Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Udall, do you have any questions? I do have a couple of questions. Mr. Soukup, do you ever when you do these studies, do you ever deny the study based on maintenance backlog for the Park Service; or do you approve and then come back later and say, well, you know, there is--we have a maintenance backlog and we can't do this right now? How does that work? Mr. Soukup. Well, in terms of queuing up the studies, if Congress provides legislation, we will do the study. The problem that I think you are referring to is right now that we have sort of a backlog of studies. We have 39 pending studies and they just take a while to get all of those feasible alternatives or nonfeasible alternatives studied by all parties interested. It does take a while. But it is my understanding that once a study is initiated, we apply the criteria, we do the study, and then we make it available to Congress, and Congress looks at the alternatives and decides whether or not to take action. Mr. Radanovich. But you never recommend--well, you do have an opinion when you do the study. Mr. Soukup. Yes. Mr. Radanovich. Do you think it is a viable project but, because of maintenance backlog, you are saying no? Mr. Soukup. I don't think that--I would have to get back to you on that. I don't think that would be our position. Our position would be these are the alternatives, these are the costs. Mr. Radanovich. Okay. Mr. Soukup. Certainly the Department may have something to say about that, or the administration. Mr. Radanovich. Okay. Mr. Coomer, what is your vision of this? From the West, Mark was mentioning earlier--it is a little bit different concept I think in the Midwest. What do you hope to have, markers along highways or--I know there are three spots that are pretty important in between the trails that kind of are landmarks. Is this a bike trail? Is this something--I am not sure I understand the concept of it being in the national trail system. Mr. Coomer. I am not exactly sure. I think the study would provide clarification along these lines. Mr. Radanovich. Maybe if I could ask, then, what you hope would come from this. Mr. Coomer. I would like to see it come as close to the trail as we can possibly make it. From what I gather, from what I understand, that needs to be researched further. There are three trails that have been identified. And I think there just needs to be a little more study done before that is determined. But what is critical, as you indicate, we have got other points in Illinois. Fort Kaskaskia, specifically the Cahokia Courthouse up in Cahokia, and then going across to Vincennes. The pieces I think are there. It is a matter of being able to link these, market these, provide opportunities for other communities to take advantage of this opportunity. I think that is the real benefit from our standpoint. In southern Illinois, tourism is a major force. The opportunities to take advantage of something of this kind of national significance. There was a question of criteria. We see various historic aspects having regional significance, State significance, national significance. This is certainly a national significant site. The opportunity to promote that, to market that, that this trail would bring with it, I think is just an excellent opportunity resource. Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Any other questions from any other members? Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief comment on your question? Mr. Radanovich. Sure. Mr. Souder. That as someone who just this summer tried to go on some of these trails, when you take the Sante Fe Trail, most of the time--it is probably certainly one of the most famous, along with the Oregon Trail, where I tried to do it on the Flat River Road, that you are not always along the trail. Anymore than you are in Indiana and Illinois. That the road systems--people have irrigated differently in their farms. And, in fact, other than in Congressman Udall's district, there are hardly any ruts left, and it is because it is in the park, in the Pecos Park. There are ruts there. The only remaining trade facilities are in Pecos--which is now used as a Park Service building, which needs to be converted back to its original intent--and one in Sante Fe. What you have is, you can buy these books or you can get the stuff from the Park Service that will tell you where the sites are, but it is not a continuous thing that you can read or even follow on the highway. But you can, through the different sites connect it together. Similarly, on Flat River Road, it is very hard to see some of the different angles when you read the journals. But it is harder to duplicate in the Midwest because you have more buildings, not necessary in some of the rural areas, and some more distortion of the landscape. But I would argue that even our most famous trails are hardly perfect in trying to find or connect together. Mr. Hefley. I think you are absolutely right about that. Bents Fort, I don't know if you got to Bents Fort. Bents Fort is a wonderful reconstructed fort. That is not the original fort but it is the original location. It is at La Junta, Colorado on the Sante Fe Trail. It is a wonderful reconstruction. If you are ever out there you need to go. Mr. Souder. I took the Cimarron cutoff. Mr. Hefley. You are absolutely right. That is why I raised the question early on about whether this would be the kind of trail that you have in some places in the West, where you are trying to tie the trail systems together, so you can start on the East Coast and go to California on a trail, or whether it is something along highways; both of which, by the way, are important. Even in many cases if there is nothing really there from that time, to stand in front of a historic marker that says this is where Clark fought such-and-such a battle, and to look over the land and get kind of the feeling. I can get myself lost, and I almost smell the smoke and hear the cannons sometimes with just that kind of experience. So those are worthy experiences, too, as well as--because we are never going to put them all back together again, that is for sure. There are places in the West, because we don't get any rain, where you do have the tracks of the Oregon Trail and the Sante Fe Trail. But in the East, you change very quickly. And I think both are important. Mr. Souder. Could I make one other comment? One of our other problems in the reconstruction is that much of the western history is a little later, so there are more journals and trying to track the precise locations where Clark went is a little more difficult. We know we have Vincennes, and you can feel the battle there. We know that we have the earlier sites in Illinois. But it will be a little harder to piece together the in- between parts, because in the western trails we have just tons of journals. In the trading journals they have everythin, what they carried, and so it is a little bit more difficult process, because we tend to be back about 50 to 100 years earlier. And this has really shown up in the Native American sites where we have so little documentation and in the West where there was a fascination with the disappearing Native Americans. So there were more pictures; photography had been developed. And it isn't that we don't have equal Native American history east of the Mississippi, but we don't have as much documentation, which is more of a challenge. Mr. Radanovich. All right. Any other questions? Ms. Solis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Is it my understanding that the law requires us to have a continuous trail, or that that be the criteria, that there be a beginning and an end, or are there sections where just--in the examples I am hearing in Committee, that you might have certain spots that don't lead anywhere, but that is an important site. Mr. Soukup. I think the reality of this trail would be that there are areas that are pretty much highway now. In fact, I think the earlier expedition followed what roads there were. And those in many cases had been paved over and become part of the road system. I think what you may find in this situation is sort of a series of different kinds of segments of trail. There may be parts that are documentable as part of the trail that haven't been made part of the road system. Certainly there are two street parks that have been established for those two forts, Fort Massic and Kaskaskia. So there are pieces that are there in different levels of preservation. And a good alternative will take advantage of those sites where you could actually hike the trail. There are parts of it that you can identify and other parts of it will be accessible by car, with road signs and pull-offs and that kind of thing. So I am sure there is going to be a potential association of all of those things should it be a recommended site. Ms. Solis. Just lastly, what type of community consultation process do you adhere to in deciding whether or not this trail is worthy to be recognized? Mr. Soukup. That will be a big part of the process. The communities, the local communities, all of the affected stakeholders, will have a chance to publicly comment in private consultation. The idea is to look and see what is feasible and what is supportable in the communities, and there is a long process of that. That is one of reasons it takes us years to do these studies. Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions? If not, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] -