[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE
A NEW CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS TO BE KNOWN AS NATIONAL
DISCOVERY TRAILS, TO AUTHORIZE THE AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL AS THE
FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513, A
BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN
NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 588 AND H.R. 1513--TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT
__________
JUNE 10, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-393 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 10, 1997--Washington, DC....................... 1
Statements of Members:
Bereuter, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska.......................................... 4
Prepared statement....................................... 7
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement.......................... 2
Pickett, Hon. Owen B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 24
Prepared statement....................................... 25
Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 9
Prepared statement....................................... 11
Statements of witnesses:
Joslin, Robert C., Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service......... 18
Prepared statement....................................... 68
Lillard, David, President, American Hiking Society........... 26
Prepared statement....................................... 73
Lock, Leonard E.............................................. 31
Prepared statement....................................... 102
Lukei, Mr. Reese, Jr., National Coordinator, American
Discovery Trail Society.................................... 27
Prepared statement....................................... 81
Stevenson, Katherine H., Associate Director, Cultural
Resources, Stewardship and Partnership, National Park
Service.................................................... 17
Prepared statement....................................... 53
Theis, Bill, Member, S.T.O.P. (Stop Taking Our Properties)
Steering Committee......................................... 29
Prepared statement....................................... 92
Additional material supplied:
Bratton, Richard V., Mayor, Green Mountain Falls, CO......... 77
Dudley, Ellen and Eric Seaborg, Members of the original team
that scouted the American Discovery Trail route............ 50
News-Dispatch, Sept. 5, 1997................................. 101
Settler's Advocate, May 1, 1997.............................. 100
H.R. 588..................................................... 38
H.R. 1513.................................................... 47
S. Res. 57................................................... 95
HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE
A NEW CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS TO BE KNOWN AS NATIONAL
DISCOVERY TRAILS, TO AUTHORIZE THE AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL AS THE
FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513, A
BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN
NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen presiding.
Mr. Hansen. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands convenes this hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 588,
the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R. 1513, the
Lincoln National Historic Trail Act.
The first bill is H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails
Act of 1997, introduced by Mr. Bereuter and cosponsored by many
of our colleagues, which would amend the National Trails
Systems Act of 1968 by creating a new category of long-distance
national trails and authorizing the American Discovery Trail as
the first trail in this new category.
[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr.
Weller, to amend the National Trails Act of 1968 by designating
the Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of Illinois.
[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the
National Trails System Act of 1968, we should reflect briefly
on the impact this legislation has had. From the initial
recognition of the Appalachian Trail in the eastern United
States and the Pacific Crest Trail of the western United
States, the National Trails System today encompasses over
37,000 miles of trails in 45 States, consisting of 20
congressionally designated, nationally scenic and historic
trails, administered by the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition,
there are over 800 recognized national recreation trails that
do not require congressional authorization, which are
administered by local, State and private organizations after
designations by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture.
H.R. 588 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968
to establish a new congressionally authorized trail category.
National discovery trails, which will be extended contiguous to
interstate trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and
travel opportunities. The national discovery trails would
intertwine national, cultural and historic resources and
include metropolitan, urban, rural and back country regions of
the Nation. The most unique provision of this new trail
category is that there would be no Federal acquisition of land
and administration would be bottom up, with local public
involvement and local and State governments supporting the
trails with only technical assistance to be provided by Federal
agencies.
Finally, H.R. 588 would designate the first national
discovery trail, the 6,300-mile American Discovery Trail, which
would extend through 15 States, from Cape Henlopen State Park
in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in California.
H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic
Trail in the State of Illinois as a component of the National
Trails System to extend 350 miles from Lake Michigan to the
Mississippi River, generally following the Illinois River and
the Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage corridor. This channel
would promote Abraham Lincoln's legacy to Illinois and would
emphasize the important, existing historic and cultural sites
along the route. H.R. 1513 would also require an additional
study to extend the Lincoln National Historic Trail down the
Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield, Illinois.
We look forward to the testimony that will be received this
morning on these bills, and I will recognize Mr. Bereuter, the
sponsor of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor of H.R. 1513.
Also, Mr. Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce the
American Discovery Trail Society. But before I do that, I
recognize my friend from Minnesota.
[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
convenes this hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 588, the
National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R. 1513, the
Lincoln National Historic Trail Act.
The first bill is H.R. 588, ``The National Discovery Trails
Act of 1997,'' introduced by Mr. Bereuter and co-sponsored by
many of our colleagues, would amend the National Trails System
Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543), by creating a new category of
long-distance national trail, and authorizing the American
Discovery Trail (ADT) as the first trail in this new category.
The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr. Weller to
amend the National Trails System Act of 1968, by designating
``The Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of
Illinois.''
As we approach the 30th Anniversary of the National Trails
System Act of 1968 we should reflect briefly on the impact this
legislation has had. From the initial recognition of The
Appalachian Trail in the Eastern United States and The Pacific
Crest Trail in the Western United States, the National Trails
System today encompasses over 37,000 miles of trails in 45
states, consisting of 20 Congressionally designated national
scenic and historic trails, administered by the National Park
Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. In addition, there are over 800 recognized national
recreation trails, that do not require Congressional
authorization, which are administered by local, state and,
private organizations, after designation by the Secretary of
the Interior, or Secretary of Agriculture.
H.R. 538 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968
to establish a new Congressionally authorized trail category,
National Discovery Trails, which will be extended, continuous,
interstate trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and
travel opportunities. The National Discovery Trails would
intertwine natural, cultural, and historic resources and
include metropolitan, urban, rural and backcountry regions of
the Nation. The most unique provision of this new trail
category is that there is to be no Federal acquisition of land,
and the administration would be ``bottom up'' with local public
involvement and local and state governments supporting these
trails, with only technical assistance to be provided by
Federal agencies. Finally, H.R. 588 would designate the first
National Discovery Trail, the 6,300 mile American Discovery
Trail, which would extend through 15 states from Cape Henlopen
State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in
California.
H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic
Trail in the State of Illinois as a component of the National
Trails System. The trail would extend 350 miles from Lake
Michigan to the Mississippi River, generally following the
Illinois River and the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage
Corridor. The trail would promote Abraham Lincoln's legacy to
Illinois and the Nation, and would emphasize important existing
historic and cultural sites along the route.
H.R. 1513 would also require an additional study to extend
the Lincoln National Historic Trail down the Sangamon River
from Beardstown to Springfield, Illinois.
We look forward to the testimony that we will receive this
morning on these bills, and I recognize Mr. Bereuter, the
sponsor of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor of H.R. 1513.
Also, Mr. Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce Mr. Lukei
of the American Discovery Trail Society.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome
the witnesses and especially our colleagues, Mr. Bereuter, Mr.
Weller and others that are here to offer their support.
I understand--earlier this session, Congressman Schaefer
and I got together, and we have an informal group known as the
Congressional Trails Caucus. This is a week in which there is a
lot of focus of attention on these trails. Also, I understand
there is a group in town this week concerned about other
matters that have some impact on this.
In any case, I would just like to point out to the
Chairman, I think it is prudent to have hearings and to move
forward the issue that the American Discovery Trail has been
subjected to, an overall study, so we have the benefit of the
Park Service views on this, and analysis; and that will be very
helpful, if and when, and I hope we do move forward with it.
I would just suggest that these trails are an increasingly
important part of our recreational and cultural experience, Mr.
Chairman, as you are well aware.
I note that, in my community, I have been invited to speak
before a religious group that is celebrating its 150th
anniversary with regards to the beginning of a trip. I am
referring, of course, to the Mormon experience, and their role
in terms of our culture and our community and building our
community. In any case, those trails have been designated; I
think we see them as important.
We have all sorts of opportunities for recreational trails.
I myself use those types of trails extensively in and around
our area. This weekend I was out biking for 40 miles on one of
those. Yes, I made it back and forth, Mr. Chairman. In any
case, I think they are going to play these green fingers and
the opportunity to in fact use those resources as a very
important aspect, as is the impact that these designations have
on the adjacent lands and the impact, for instance, in terms of
individuals' concerns about that, so we have to be cognizant of
both.
I think this offers the opportunity for true partnerships
with State governments, local governments, in terms of
providing recreational and the identification of cultural and
historic resources; and I especially want to commend my
colleague, Mr. Bereuter, who has been working on this for about
5 or 6 years, for his continuity of interest and effort and
want to support him and Mr. Schaefer, who is my cochairman, or
cochair of this informal group known as the Trails Caucus. We
want to work with folks, and I appreciate--and I think most
do--the fact you focused on this hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman from Minnesota, and in my many years of serving on
this committee with the gentleman from Minnesota, we have
looked at a lot of trails. We did the Great Western Trail,
extending from Mexico to Canada, up to the Rocky Mountains, and
this is a very interesting thing we are doing in America at
this particular time.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, we are
privileged to have you here. We will hear from you first; then
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. here to have you here. We will
hear from you first; then the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Weller.
The time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Bereuter. Chairman Hansen, Congressman Vento,
Congressman Jones, and members of the subcommittee, it is
homecoming week for me. I spent my first two terms on this
subcommittee. Although this is my first appearance as a witness
in the Walter Jones Hearing Room, it must give you special
satisfaction, Congressman.
I would like to begin by thanking you very much for
scheduling this hearing and giving me an opportunity to express
the case for the passage of H.R. 588, the National Discovery
Trails Act, which I reintroduced on February 5, 1997. I first
introduced this legislation during the 104th Congress as H.R.
3250.
I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional
display of support, H.R. 588 has already attracted a bipartisan
mix of more than 50 cosponsors--and I might say, this is
without any effort or one-to-one, person-to-person lobbying on
my part. These cosponsors represent both rural and urban
districts and cover very diverse geographic areas. The list of
cosponsors includes members from 19 States, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I believe it is easy to see
why this legislation has attracted such widespread support. It
represents the product of a true grass-roots effort and it is
designed to provide a unique trail experience for millions of
Americans. I believe that this legislation is a tremendously
positive and exciting step forward in both the development and
in the connection of trails in America.
The bill contains two important components. First, it
creates a new category of trails, designated as the National
Discovery Trails. This new category will complete a missing gap
in the current National Trails System by establishing a link
between urban and rural trails. Second, the legislation will
designate the American Discovery Trail--I will call it ADT--as
the first trail in the new category.
This trail, the ADT, was first proposed by the American
Hiking Society and Backpacker magazine in 1989. In 1991, a
scouting team hiked and biked its way across America, working
with local citizen groups and local State and Federal land
managers to map the route of ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992,
Public Law 102-461, authorized a feasibility study for the
trail, which the National Park Service completed in January of
1996.
The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend
from coast to coast. It is also the first national trail
designed to connect urban areas to wilderness areas. The
designation of ADT, a multiuse trail, itself creates a national
system of connected trails and links large cities and
communities of all sizes across the Nation with majestic forest
and remote desert landscapes. ADT also links such nationally
known trails as the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails with
numerous local trails across the United States. Along the way,
it provides access to countless historic cultural and scenic
landmarks.
I introduced the House version of this bill because I
believe that the ADT will provide outstanding family-oriented
recreational opportunities for all Americans. It will serve as
the transcontinental backbone for a growing National Trails
System by linking together a variety of local, regional and
national trails and making them more accessible. In addition,
ADT will offer important economic development benefits to the
communities along the route.
States and communities are also justifiably excited about
the increased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present
and are asking to be included or want to know how they can hook
on. In that regard, I have had several experiences in my own
State of communities wanting to know how they can assure that
they are a part of the trail. I received, for example, a letter
from the mayor of York, Nebraska, my birthplace. Last year the
city of York recognized the benefit of the ADT and took the
initiative to request that the city be included on the route. I
am pleased to say that their request was accommodated.
I also clearly want to stress and stress again that the ADT
takes into account private property concerns by routing almost
all of the trail on public lands--mostly public road, highway
rights of way. I understand that a private property rights
advocate, Bill Theis, also will testify later this morning, and
I would like to reassure him and everyone else that one of the
basic principles on which the ADT has been developed has been
to avoid routing on private property.
The ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public
lands. As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the
route are located on private property and then only locations
where there are existing rights-of-way or agreement with
existing trails or by invitation. Private property rights would
be fully protected through language in the bill which mandates
that, quote, ``No lands or interests outside the exterior
boundaries of federally administered areas may be acquired by
the United States solely for the American Discovery Trail,'' so
it doesn't provide eminent domain or opportunities, it simply
does not raise this issue. And if that is raised because of the
very straightforward reassurances to the contrary, I think you
would understand that opposition in this respect would be a red
herring.
I would also like to take a moment to mention the
importance of the ADT in my home State as one example of the
impact across the country. In Nebraska, the trail passes
through Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte,
Ogallala, and numerous small communities. Trails groups
throughout the State have been energized by the ADT, since they
have realized the important role they will play in this unique
national trails initiative.
Nebraska, of course, like many States, has a rich trails
history, and I am pleased that the ADT gives trails enthusiasts
the opportunity to explore the most popular and significant of
the pioneer trails to the West Coast and the mountain region.
The Mormon trail, I might say, I participated with some
people re-creating the trip from eastern Nebraska, two
locations, one in my district and one near it, across the
State, all the way to the Salt Lake City region. They will be
arriving there, Mr. Chairman; you can tell me exactly when, but
I think it is in late July. I noticed the impact it had on
schoolchildren along the way as they made a special effort to
explain what was happening, what life had been like in this
vast, uncharted prairie country 150 years ago; and people came
back from Utah, for example, to commemorate people who lost
their lives along the way. But this route in Nebraska takes the
same course as the Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the
California Trail, as well as a Pony Express Trail and the route
of the first transcontinental railroad.
Additionally, I would highlight the trails effort by the
city of Lincoln, Nebraska, in relation to ADT, they showed a
high level of enthusiasm for the ADT, which has become the
focal point for the city's trails programs. They received
recently a great deal of fame and success in their trails
effort, but I won't go into great detail, you have got that in
the record.
The city of Lincoln's example demonstrates, I think, the
positive impact the ADT has had on communities through
counterpart activities already. The community has worked hard
to create an outstanding trail system, and it is clear these
efforts were energized by the ADT.
I think this is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge
and commend Mr. Reese Lukei, Jr., the ADT national coordinator.
I understand he will also testify in front of this subcommittee
for this legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been an
energetic and tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive
efforts along with the American Hiking Society certainly raised
awareness of the trail and support for it.
The ADT is supported not only by the American Hiking
Society, but also the National Parks and Conservation
Association, American Trails, American Volkssport Association
and numerous local trails organizations. I would also like to
briefly mention two books about the ADT which have been
published. I have them here. One is an explorer's guide, edited
by Reese Lukei; and the other is a firsthand account of a
journey along the trail written by Ellen Dudley and Eric
Seaborg, members of the 1990-91 trail-scouting team who have
submitted testimony for this hearing. These books describe the
unique and fascinating qualities of the ADT.
[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that
although the ADT is national in scope, this important trails
project is made possible by grass-roots efforts on the State
and local levels. Enactment of this legislation is critically
needed in order for the ADT to achieve its outstanding
potential. With the passage of this bill, we will help ensure
the ADT will offer benefits for generations to come.
I have not been on the entire 6,300 miles of the trail, Mr.
Vento; I have been at both ends. But I think you have seen
parts of it, and I have seen other parts of it and walked on
them or biked on them, and this is an outstanding effort, I
hope this committee will be able to advance.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We appreciate your
testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]
Statement of Hon. Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress for the
State of Nebraska
Chairman Hansen, Delegate Faleomavaega, and Members of the
Subcommittee: I would like to begin by thanking you very much
for scheduling this hearing and giving me the opportunity to
express the case for the passage of H.R. 588, the National
Discovery Trails Act, which I re-introduced on February 5,
1997. I first introduced this legislation during the 104th
Congress as H.R. 3250.
I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional
display of support, H.R. 588 has already attracted a bipartisan
mix of more than 50 cosponsors. These cosponsors represent both
rural and urban districts and cover very diverse geographic
areas. The list of cosponsors includes Members from 19 states,
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I believe it's easy to see why
this legislation has attracted such widespread support. It
represents the product of a true grassroots effort, and it is
designed to provide a unique trail experience for millions of
Americans. I believe that this legislation is a tremendously
positive and exciting step forward in both the development and
in the connection of trails in America.
The bill contains two important components: First, it
creates a new category of trails, designated as the National
Discovery Trails. This new category will complete a missing gap
in the current National Trails System by establishing a link
between urban and rural trails. Second, the legislation will
designate the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the first trail
in the new category.
This trail was first proposed by the American Hiking
Society and Backpacker magazine in 1989. In 1990-91, a scouting
team hiked and biked its way across America, working with local
citizen groups and local, state, and Federal land managers to
map the route of the ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992 (Public
Law 102-461) authorized a feasibility study for the trail,
which the National Park Service completed in January 1996.
The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend
from coast-to coast. It's also the first national trail
designed to connect urban areas to wilderness areas. This
multi-use trail itself creates a national system of connected
trails and links large cities with majestic forests and remote
desert landscapes. The ADT also links such nationally noted
trails as the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest trails with
numerous local trails across the U.S. Along the way, it
provides access to countless historic, cultural and scenic
landmarks.
I introduced the House version of this bill because I
believe that the ADT will provide outstanding, family-oriented
recreational opportunities for all Americans. It will serve as
the transcontinental backbone for a growing national trails
system by linking together a variety of local, regional and
national trails and making them more accessible.
In addition, the ADT will offer important economic
development benefits to the communities along its route. States
and communities are also justifiably excited about the
increased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present and
are asking to be included or want to know how they can ``hook
on.'' In that regard, I would like to submit for the record the
letter I received from the mayor of York, Nebraska. Last year
the City of York recognized the benefits of the ADT and took
the initiative to request that the city be included on the
route. I am pleased to say that their request was accommodated.
I also clearly want to stress and re-stress that the ADT
takes into account private property concerns by routing almost
all of the trail on public lands. I understand that a private
property rights advocate, Bill Theis, will also testify later
this morning and I would like to reassure him and everyone else
that one of the basic principles on which the ADT has been
developed has been to avoid routing it on private property. The
ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public lands.
As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the route
are located on private property and then only in locations
where there are existing rights-of-way or agreements with
existing trails or by invitation. Private property rights would
be fully protected through language in the bill which mandates
that ``no lands or interests outside the exterior boundaries of
federally administered areas may be acquired by the United
States solely for the American Discovery Trail.''
I would also like to take a moment to mention the
importance of the ADT in my home state. In Nebraska, the trail
passes through Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island, Kearney, North
Platte, Ogallala and numerous small communities. Trails groups
throughout the state have been energized by the ADT since they
have realized the important role they will play in this unique
national trail initiative.
Nebraska has a rich trails history and I am pleased that
the ADT gives trails enthusiasts the opportunity to explore the
most popular and significant of the pioneer trails to the West
Coast--the Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the California
Trail--as well as the Pony Express Trail and the route of the
first transcontinental railroad.
Additionally, I would highlight the trails efforts by the
City of Lincoln, Nebraska in relation to the ADT. Lincoln has
shown a high level of enthusiasm for the ADT, which has become
a focal point for the city's trails program. I am pleased that
Lincoln's extensive trails efforts were recently rewarded. Last
month, the American Hiking Society announced that Lincoln was
chosen as a charter member of the Trail Town USA Hall of Fame.
A panel of judges including representatives from USA Today, the
American Society of Travel Agents, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, rated the City of Lincoln as the number seven
community in the nation for trails. The judges based the awards
on more than a dozen criteria including miles of trails, future
plans, and volunteer and government support. Two other urban
areas in this top ten list are also located on the ADT route.
The City of Lincoln's example demonstrates the kind of
positive impact the ADT has had on communities throughout the
nation. The community has worked hard to create an outstanding
trails system and it is clear that these efforts were energized
by the ADT. Lincoln's strong commitment to the development of
trails will continue to pay dividends in the form of increased
tourism, economic development and recreational opportunities
for its citizens.
This is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge and
commend Mr. Reese Lukei, Jr., the ADT's national coordinator. I
understand that he will also testify before the Subcommittee in
support of the legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been
an energetic and tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive
efforts, along with the work of the American Hiking Society,
have certainly helped raise awareness about the trail and
support for it.
The American Discovery Trail is supported by not only the
American Hiking Society, but also the National Parks and
Conservation Association, American Trails, American Volkesport
Association and numerous local trails organizations. I would
also like to briefly mention two books about the ADT which have
been published. One is an explorer's guide edited by Reese
Lukei and the other is a firsthand account of a journey along
the trail written by Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg, members of
the 1990-91 trail-scouting team, who have submitted testimony
for this hearing. These books describe the unique and
fascinating qualities of the ADT.
Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that although the
ADT is national in scope, this important trails project is made
possible by the grassroots efforts on the state and local
level. Enactment of this legislation is critically needed in
order for the ADT to achieve its outstanding potential. With
passage of this bill, we will help ensure that the ADT will
offer benefits for generations to come.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 588.
Letter to Hon. Doug Bereuter from Greg Adams, the Mayor of York,
Nebraska
June 4, l997
Representative Doug Bereuter
2348 Rayburn, House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Doug:
Your continued support of the National Discovery Trail
System and the American Discover Trail Route is to be
commended.
Completion of the American Discovery Trail Route in the
York area would afford billing enthusiasts additional
recreational opportunities and provide a direct link with
larger population centers providing access to additional
recreational facilities. Outdoor recreation interest, biking in
particular, has grown tremendously in the York area in recent
years and we believe this trend will continue into the 21st
century
The economic benefit resulting from users of the proposed
trail system is difficult to project. However, it is with
certainty that York and other communities along the American
Discovery Trail Route will realize a positive economic impact.
Users, and in some cases their support groups, will need food,
lodging, and supplies as they enjoy this recreational
experience.
Again, we urge your continued support for the American
Discovery Trail System.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF YORK
Greg Adams,
Mayor
Mr. Hansen. The Honorable Jerry Weller, we are grateful to
have you with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also grateful for
the hearing you are providing for H.R. 1513. I also want to
thank Mr. Vento and Mr. Jones for the opportunity to be with
you today and to testify on behalf of this legislation, which I
feel is both an important and exciting initiative, a bill to
designate the Lincoln Historic Trail, legislation that has
earned bipartisan support in Illinois delegation.
Before I go on, I would like to take an opportunity to
recognize Leonard Lock, Chairman of the city of Ottawa Historic
Preservation Commission, and one of those who, almost 20 years
ago, was a pioneer, leading an effort to establish the
Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor through Illinois. Mr.
Lock has taken his time to join us today to testify--and will
be testifying later this morning--to be with us and share his
knowledge and insight on Lincoln's history throughout Illinois
and, of course, his reason for naming this particular trail
after Abraham Lincoln.
I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would
designate the Lincoln National Historic Trail as a component of
the National Trails System. This trail would consist of a 350-
mile stretch generally following the Illinois River and the
Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would
begin at the Chicago Portage National Historic site and
conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail at Wood River.
My legislation resulted from a feasibility study conducted
by the National Park Service. The Park Service was directed by
Congress to determine the feasibility and desirability of
establishing the ``Illinois Trail'' as a National Scenic or
National Historic Trail. I should mention here that my
legislation changes the name from ``Illinois Trail'' to
``Lincoln Trail,'' but it is the exact same trail that was
studied. The Park Service concluded the proposed trail met the
criteria for both national historic trails and national scenic
trails, but that a historic trail would be most feasible.
As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the
Illinois River and the I&M Canal. The Illinois River was used
for commerce and transportation during Lincoln's day, although
French settlers were using it for trade long before Lincoln's
time. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a
State legislator, was a proponent of building the canal between
the Chicago River and the Illinois River at LaSalle, which was
a major navigational improvement that helped position Chicago
as a major economic center, which it has since become and
achieved that goal.
There would be interpretive sites along the trail of
historical significance. For instance, the trail would go
through Ottawa, Illinois, the site of the first of the famous
Lincoln-Douglas debates. Others include the old Beardstown
courthouse, which is the only remaining courtroom where Abraham
Lincoln practiced law.
I also might note that the studies show that this route
comes at a very low cost with little land acquisition and is
the route preferred by the State of Illinois according to the
Park Service study.
The Park Service would develop and manage access areas and
facilities to allow recreational boating on the historic
waterway. The Park Service would be responsible for
administration of the trail and would work with the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources to coordinate trail facility
development, as well as areas for picnicking and camping.
Designation of the ``Lincoln National Historic Trail'' would
increase tourism, conservation and recreation while reinforcing
Abraham Lincoln's contributions to our Nation's history.
Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring
history and nature enthusiasts to the region for biking,
camping, boating and other recreational activities. This
increased tourism will improve local economies along the route.
The folks that come to visit the Lincoln Trail will eat in
local establishments, stay in local hotels, and patronize local
establishments to rent and purchase skates, cycling equipment
and other items. A U.S. Department of Interior study on the
Impact of Rails-to-Trails found the average trail user spent
between $4 and $11 a day, generating an annual impact of $1.2
million or more. Due to the length of the length of the trail,
we would expect this number to be much higher. This plan is
great for economic development throughout the State of
Illinois.
There is some evidence that having a trail such as this
adjacent to property will increase its value. The survey of
real estate agents completed on a similar trail in Washington
State revealed that property near the trail sells for an
average of 6 percent more.
To summarize, my legislation, H.R. 1513, would designate
the proposed ``Illinois Trail'' as a national historic trail,
while changing the name to the Lincoln National Historic Trail.
I have also included a provision that requests a study of an
extension of the trail along the Sangamon River from Beardstown
to Springfield. This would be a water-based route and would
emphasize important historic and cultural sites along the
river, ending at Springfield, Abraham Lincoln's hometown.
Finally, I would like to express my support for the other
piece of legislation the committee is looking at today, the
American Discovery Trail, a bill by Congressman Bereuter. I am
pleased to endorse his initiative.
I ask for your support, and I also want to thank you for
this hearing today and the opportunity to present this
legislation.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Weller follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jerry Weller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for having me here today to talk about a very
exciting piece of legislation--a bill to designate the Lincoln
National Historic Trail. Before I go on, I would like to
recognize Leonard Lock, Chairman of the City of Ottawa Historic
Preservation Commission, who has taken his time to come out to
Washington to be with us today and share his knowledge and
insight on Lincoln history throughout Illinois. Mr. Lock will
present his testimony shortly.
I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would
designate the Lincoln National Historic Trail as a component of
the National Trails System. This trail would consist of a 350
mile stretch generally following the Illinois River and the
Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would
begin at the Chicago Portage National Historic site, and
conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail at Wood River.
My legislation resulted from a feasibility study that was
conducted by the National Park Service. The Park Service was
directed by Congress to determine the feasibility and
desirability of establishing the ``Illinois Trail'' as a
National Scenic or National Historic Trail. I should mention
here that my legislation changes the name from ``Illinois
Trail'' to ``Lincoln Trail,'' but is the exact same trail that
was studied. The Park Service concluded that the proposed trail
met the criteria for both national historic trails and national
scenic trails, but that an historic trail would be most
feasible.
As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the
Illinois River and I&M Canal. The Illinois River was used for
commerce and transportation during Lincoln's day, although
French settlers were using it for trade long before Lincoln's
time. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a
state legislator, was a proponent of building the canal between
the Chicago River and the Illinois River at LaSalle, which was
a major navigational improvement that helped to position
Chicago as a major economic center. There would be interpretive
sites along the trail that have historical significance. For
instance, the trail would go through Ottawa, Illinois--the site
of the first of the infamous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Other
historical sites include the old Beardstown Courthouse, which
is the only remaining courtroom where Abraham Lincoln practiced
law.
The Park Service would develop and manage river access
areas and facilities to allow recreational boating on the
historic waterway. The Park Service would be responsible for
administration of the trail, and would work with the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources to coordinate trail and
facility development, as well as areas for picnicking and
camping. Designation of the ``Lincoln National Historic Trail''
would increase tourism, conservation, and recreation while
reinforcing Lincoln's contributions to our nation's history.
Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring
history and nature enthusiasts to the region for biking,
camping, boating and other recreational activities. This
increased tourism will improve local economies along the route.
The folks that come to visit the Lincoln Trail will eat in
local establishments, stay in local hotels, and patronize local
establishments to rent or purchase skates, bicycling equipment
and other such items. A U.S. Department of Interior study on
the Impacts of Rails-to-Trails found that the average trail
user spent between $4 and $11 per day, generating an annual
impact of $1.2 million or more. Due to the length of the
Lincoln Trail, we could expect this number to be much higher.
This plan is great for economic development throughout the
state of Illinois. There is some evidence that having a trail
such as this adjacent to property will increase its value. A
survey of real estate agents completed on a similar trail in
Washington State revealed that property near the trail sells
for an average of 6 percent more.
To summarize, my bill, H.R. 1513, would designate the
proposed ``Illinois Trail'' as a national historic trail, while
changing the name to the ``Lincoln National Historic Trail.'' I
have also included a provision that requests a study of an
extension of the trail along the Sangamon River from Beardstown
to Springfield. This would be a water-based route, and would
emphasize important historic and cultural sites along the
river, ending at Springfield, Abraham Lincoln's birthplace.
Finally, I would like to express my support for the other
piece of legislation we are looking at today, the American
Discovery Trail bill by Congressman Bereuter. I am a co-sponsor
of this legislation, and am pleased to lend my support. I urge
the Committee to move favorably and approve H.R. 1513, to
designate the ``Lincoln National Historic Trail.''
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota, do you have
questions for our colleagues?
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, with regards to Mr. Weller's
legislation, I haven't examined the study, but there is this
nomenclature issue with regards to what best description
occurs; and the gentleman sitting next to you represents
Lincoln, Nebraska, so the name gets used often, so I think you
ought to think long and hard about that.
I asked the staff, Rick Healy on the Minority side--and I
think the issue is, if you want to attach Lincoln's name, you
might want to talk about the canal as being the Lincoln Canal
and try to keep nomenclature accurate with regards to the
Illinois Trail, because it does follow the river. So I would
suggest that as an alternative; it isn't enough, but I think
you want to be accurate with regards to how you designate that.
My colleague from Nebraska has put forth and been working--
I said 5 years, and I guess it has been 8 years you have been
working on this particular proposal; and it is a very ambitious
proposal in terms of its length and breadth in covering the
Nation. Later we are going to hear some corrections from the
Park Service about this, and they are going to discuss some of
the conflicts that are inherent.
I sponsored this bill with you, I think it is important
enough, although it is a generic change to the basic trails
legislation with regards to motorized use, in order to avoid or
at least keep this tied together. I haven't looked at this in
as much detail as I should have, Congressman Bereuter, but what
segments, or how many miles? Have you separated any of the
mileage out in terms of how much would be motorized and how
much would not be motorized?
Mr. Bereuter. No, I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps
one of the witnesses involved in the initial pioneer scouting
trail will. I would say that the predominant amount of the
6,000-plus miles are on rights-of-way, existing rights-of-way,
but of course there are a number of areas it does cross State
parks or national forests, and those oftentimes do not follow.
Mr. Vento. I think it is a good concept to tie together
national lands and State parks and other units along the way
that give people the experience.
At the end of this, you said you hadn't covered it all, but
I suppose when you run for President, this will be one of your
commitments, to in fact entirely tread this trail, or at least
bike it part way.
Mr. Bereuter. I am more realistic, I hope, about the
opportunity to pass this legislation than I am about any
intention to run for President, I think.
Mr. Weller. May I respond to Mr. Vento's question regarding
the nomenclature?
Mr. Hansen. Surely.
Mr. Weller. Illinois, we are very proud to call, ``The Land
of Lincoln'' and of course, other than--we recognize he was
born in Kentucky, but he spent his entire professional life,
other than while he served briefly in the Congress and while he
served as one of our Nation's greatest Presidents, in Illinois.
This trail would start in Chicago where Abraham Lincoln was
nominated for President, and I just think, when you think of
Illinois, you think of Abraham Lincoln; and that is why we feel
it is an appropriate name for a national trail.
Mr. Vento. This is a pristine logic, Mr. Chairman. I would
just suggest, I think there are two separate sites; there is
the homestead site for Lincoln in Illinois, in Springfield, but
there is another site as well.
In any case, I think in terms of the public's looking at
these, they expect it may bring those together or actually have
a connection with, for instance, Kentucky; which I think makes
the point that I am trying to, you know, in terms of
communicating this to those that understand the history better
than I, and as well as you, Mr. Weller.
In any case, I would offer it as a way of, you know,
recognizing where his role was significant in terms of the
establishment of the Michigan-Illinois Canal, the Heritage
site, and obviously you would accomplish both goals, and you do
it in such a way as to be consistent and so operating isn't
obviously a big point.
Mr. Weller. And I am most anxious to work with you in a
bipartisan manner, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The colleague from Nebraska, I often wonder, at the
National Governors Conference--the counties, the mayors--any
support or comment or objection to your bill? Do any of these
groups come forth?
Mr. Bereuter. I have not received comments from them on it
one way or the other. There have been news articles lately in
some of the national publications, which indicate support from
individual governors and, of course, wide numbers of mayors. I
have had no one contact me in my own State in a negative sense,
either public official or nonpublic, but I don't believe that
any of the national associations of public officials of various
varieties have taken a position on it one way or the other.
Perhaps I am more delinquent in not asking them to do that.
Mr. Hansen. You have kept them aware and apprised of what
is going on, and so far you have had no comments?
Mr. Bereuter. That is correct.
Mr. Hansen. In your testimony, you make a point of the
idea, it would not acquire private land or any private
property. Do you intend that that would occur anywhere? I mean,
this is the most ambitious trail I have ever looked at, and I
wonder if you envisioned any of that occurring along the line.
Mr. Bereuter. As you know, there are only 58 miles that are
not now on public rights-of-way or public lands, and those have
existing agreements that have been acquired at this point. My
view is that the only real source of opposition to this
legislation could come from people that are concerned about the
taking of private property, and so I simply wanted to set aside
that issue, because the people who have worked with me over a
period of time have indicated it is not necessary to have an
opportunity for eminent domain, and in fact, they go beyond
that and say we do not anticipate nor want the right, under the
legislation, to acquire private property, even from willing
sellers. Fifty-eight miles in 6,300 is such an insignificant
amount, and there is no reason, of course, why one needs to
have it all on public land as long as you have arrangements
with the owners of the 58 miles.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would say
this. You may have noticed that the legislation, which
prohibits the acquisition of private land, does not apply to
the category of trails being created, only to the American
Discovery Trail itself; and I would leave to your judgment, as
a trail-by-trail consideration of future legislation, whether
or not you wanted to prohibit the acquisition of private land
on new trails that might be added under this category.
But I simply did not want to face that difficulty, because
I don't think it is essential to the success of this trail, and
I didn't want to have that raised as an argument against this
particular trail, the American Discovery Trail. But you will
have the judgment in the future, unless you would prefer to
change the legislation and make the prohibition a categoric one
that would apply to future trails.
Mr. Hansen. I have noticed, in the little bit I have seen
of your legislation, a lot of it is contiguous to interstates,
State roads, areas such as that. They are constantly changing
interstates or adding lanes and they are changing direction.
Does that give you any concern at all? Do we have a conflict
anywhere with that?
Mr. Bereuter. We think that there needs to be an ongoing
effort on the part of the nonprofit organization in working
with the National Park Service, and of course, the Department
of Transportation and its State equivalents, to modify the
trail in the future as the specific route changes, because
there is a right-of-way change. Generally those changes would
be modest, it would seem, especially in the part of the
country--you have a heavy roads system with lots of county
roads in my part of the country, of course, on a square-mile
basis. But in some parts of the country, like your own, there
aren't that many alternatives in the more sparcely settled
parts of the Nation west of you.
So I do think you need to have an ongoing effort as roads
change, as rights-of-way are selected--for the route might
change modestly, I would think--to redesignate that particular
2- to 5-mile, 10-mile stretch, whatever it might be.
Mr. Hansen. On the Great Western Trail, we hooked up
existing trails; we put signs up saying, ``This is the Great
Western Trail.'' To this day, it isn't completed, but it starts
in Mexico, and parts are motorized, there are parts of only
walking trails. I guess we can take animals on most of them.
Most of this is done by volunteers who have volunteered their
time----
Mr. Bereuter. That is correct.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing] and have spent an awful lot of
time improving the trails and have worked with local
governments. It really hasn't cost the Federal Government much
money at all. What do you anticipate, cost-wise, on this?
Mr. Bereuter. The Park Service at this point would indicate
that the comprehensive plan developed by the nonprofit
organization, which would be presented to you and your
equivalent in the other body, would cost $360,000; then the
annual cost is estimated to be $200,000 for signing and the
relatively small amount of maintenance that relates to the
trail.
So we are obviously talking about a trails enthusiasts'
volunteer effort. If they are talking about--only about that
amount of signing, you know that doesn't go very far. I do
think, as you probably were noting yourself, that the
refinement of a trail, through the markings and through the
development of it, is an ongoing process.
I am very proud of the fact that the Lewis and Clark Trail,
basically a water trail, passes on the boundary of my State;
and some time ago, with the help of this committee, I gave some
incentives for local groups to designate all of the Lewis and
Clark campgrounds. But again, the markers or the kiosks or the
outlooks that were developed on public land, that had a lot of
volunteer effort as well; and that effort is not complete in
the surrounding States.
I think our State is ahead in marking all the campgrounds,
but it has provided, incidentally, an opportunity for people in
my State and from elsewhere around the country to actually
retrace the Lewis and Clark expedition with excerpts from the
journal for that day on the signs that are erected; and it is
done in a fashion that is consistent with the logo that was
established by the National Park Service, so that ultimately,
it will tie the whole effort to at least some degree of
similarity in marking.
Mr. Hansen. I have noticed our colleague from Virginia, Mr.
Pickett, hasn't arrived.
Mr. Vento. Just a brief question for Mr. Bereuter. One of
the concerns expressed by the Park Service is the exemption
from the American Discovery Trail from two sections, and while
one authorizes the acceptance of donations in collaboration,
through cooperative agreements, the other authorizes land
exchanges to protect national trails. These provisions, both of
which would be voluntary in this--you know, someone conveying
land or an easement or voluntarily entering into a cooperative
agreement, or a land exchange, where you have a conflict with
the Park Service or the Department of Interior, could
accomplish that.
I take it your--you did this consciously, you left these
out because you are concerned about not having any authority in
here for gaining additional land within the context of it. But
it seems to me--I understand the good faith you are trying to
show, and even in spite of this, you are--concerns are being
raised; but do you understand, my concern is that it seems to
me that these tools are important administrative tools,
especially for the length and breadth of the trail, so I hope
we can work out something, notwithstanding that.
You are being criticized today in spite of the fact you
have done this, but I just think those are reasonable tools
that I think the Park Service needs in this instance,
especially considering the length, because you can avoid
problems by using those tools.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Vento, I knew of the concerns of the Park
Service, but in an abundance of caution, we took this step to
try to avert any kind of legitimate criticism about expansion
of public lands and a concern that local governmental units
might lose tax base. You will, of course, have the judgment on
that issue. I certainly don't see anything wrong with donating
funds, but when you donate land, you are back in a controversy.
And I would just point out, once again, page 5, line 8, those
three subsections that are exempted in this legislation do not
apply to the category, you may have noticed, but it applies
only to this trail, this ADT; it does not apply to the category
being established.
Mr. Vento. Of course, the issue here is some can be
purchased by nonprofits; we don't have any control over that,
so I think continuity would make some sense. If this were, I
suppose, threshold questions with regards to what the impact
would be, I would say in a rural county, you could have a
donation of easement that might diminish the land value or do
other things, I don't know, but it seems to me in terms of
trying to avoid conflict and provide the type of experience and
the meaningful designation that you have been advancing--but I
understand your concern. I just wanted to make the observation
with regards--because I think some of us would try to
administer things, where we have such limited options makes it
difficult to accomplish the goals we are trying to achieve, and
I think you can understand what I am saying.
Mr. Bereuter. I do.
Mr. Hansen. You know, there is nothing easy in the world,
especially in Congress, but we will work things out as we go
along. I am sure there will be additional questions. In my
mind, I am wondering about rights-of-way, gas lines, power
lines, all of those things. I don't think we have ever done
anything easy around here, have we?
Mr. Vento. Not when it is 6,000 miles.
Mr. Hansen. But I do appreciate our two colleagues giving
their excellent testimony and the very tantalizing and
intriguing proposals you have put before this committee. Thank
you for being here. I wish Mr. Pickett could have been with us.
We will take his testimony, however. We will excuse you and
turn to our first panel.
Our first panel is Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director,
Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnership, for the
National Park Service. We are always grateful to have Katherine
Stevenson with us. And Robert C. Joslin, Deputy Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service. If those two would come up.
I hope you are all right. Can you suffer through this?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir. I had thought of telling you that
this was the result of a climbing accident or something of the
like, but I thought it wouldn't be best to lie to Congress.
Mr. Hansen. I can understand that. I always like to make it
a skiing accident and tell somebody; I really say, I fell down
some stairs or something.
Anyway, can both of you handle 5 minutes or what time do
you need? Is 5 minutes adequate? OK. You know the rules; just
like a traffic light.
We invite both Mr. Weller and Mr. Bereuter to come up if
they feel so inclined.
Ms. Stevenson. Would you like me to testify on both H.R.
588 and H.R. 1513 at the same time.
Mr. Hansen. If you wouldn't mind. Do you need a few more
minutes, maybe 10 minutes?
Ms. Stevenson. No, I don't need that much time.
Mr. Hansen. Why don't we give you 7, because I think you
are probably going to need the time. I know how good you are at
this; you are an old hand at it. We will go ahead and recognize
you at this time
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
CULTURAL RESOURCES, STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the
full testimony for the record if you would be so kind.
On H.R. 588, the National Park Service strongly supports
enactment, if amended, as proposed in our testimony. As several
witnesses before me have pointed out, the bill establishes a
new category of long-distance trails, the national discovery
trails, and also authorizes the American Discovery Trail as the
first national discovery trail.
The National Park Service has been involved in this for a
number of years, since 1990 when the ADT was proposed. In 1992,
Congress directed a feasibility study, which we completed in
December of 1995 and submitted to Congress in 1996. The trail
proposed, as you have pointed out, extends over 6,000 miles and
the criteria described in the bill will further the goals of
the National Trails System by incorporating a variety of cities
and towns and will increase public access to the trails system.
The primary management responsibility will be with a strong
partner and then with us, and we believe very strongly that the
partner should be there from the beginning and have a major
role in the development, as well as the designation, as has
been the case.
The trail largely uses existing trails and trail systems,
and you have heard a fair amount of testimony already, that
only a handful of private parcels will be authorized, or will
be involved, and that an underlying trail exists already, as do
voluntary agreements with those private property owners.
On the ever-present issue of cost, the details will be in
the comprehensive management plan. The feasibility study said
the comprehensive management plan itself would cost $360,000
over the course of several years and that our estimated
operating costs would be about $400,000 per year. I refer you
to the proposed amendments in our testimony, pages 6 through 9,
and I won't address those individually unless you wish.
In H.R. 1513, Interior supports the designation, but not
the name or the focus on Lincoln. This bill would again amend
the National Trails System Act by adding another national
historic trail called the Lincoln National Historic Trail and
designating a study trail that would extend the Lincoln Trail.
In large measure, this proposal is the trail proposed in the
feasibility study called the Illinois Trail that was
transmitted to Congress by the National Park Service in 1991.
The study itself was conducted from 1984 to 1987, so the study
is some 10 years old.
We found the trail to be nationally significant for its
historic and prehistoric use as a commerce and transportation
corridor. While Abraham Lincoln has a connection, as has been
pointed out earlier, to the Illinois and Michigan Canal portion
of the trail and perhaps some other portions, we would argue
the national significance lies in its role in the development
of trade, commerce and transportation, as well as exploration,
migration and settlement, so a much broader significance than
that of Lincoln alone.
It may well be that a trail directly associated with the
life of Lincoln is appropriate, but we have not yet studied
this issue and could not support this named designation.
Consequently, we recommend that the trail on the Illinois River
and waterway route be designated as the Illinois Trail, and the
additional study route be deleted until it could be part of an
entire Lincoln proposal to be made at a later date.
Thank you very much for considering our comments. We look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We appreciate your comments.
[The statement of Ms. Stevenson can be found at the end of
the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Joslin, we will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE
Mr. Joslin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thanks for inviting us to come and share our
views on H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997. I
brought with me Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage
and Wilderness Resources in the Forest Service. As stated, my
complete statement has been submitted for the record, so I will
summarize that statement and then will be glad to answer
questions from you and members of the subcommittee.
The Department of Agriculture does not object to the
creation of a new category of trails as proposed by H.R. 588,
the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997. You have already
heard the background on the American Discovery Trail from Mrs.
Stevenson, so I will not repeat it. The National Trails Systems
Act consists of eight national scenic trails, 12 national
historic trails and over 800 national recreation trails. The
Forest Service is responsible for the overall management of
more than 125,000 miles of trails in the national forest
system.
Trails are a key ingredient to wonderful outdoor,
recreational and scenic experience, which is why over 30
million recreation visitor-days are spent each year in trails
in the national forests. The success of long distance trails,
such as the American Discovery Trail, is dependent on strong
State and local support in conjunction with public and private
partners. Working cooperatively through partnerships and
volunteer groups, as stated in the National Trails Systems Act,
would be essential elements of the success of the American
Discovery Trail.
We wish to raise two concerns with regard to planning and
administering the American Discovery Trail, as stated in H.R.
588. The first point deals with the comprehensive management
plan. Section 2(c) of the bill would require that the
administering Federal agencies shall enter into arrangements
with a competent, trail-wide, nonprofit organization to submit
a comprehensive plan.
It is unclear who has the ultimate responsibility for
preparing and transmitting the comprehensive plan to Congress.
Nonprofit organizations are not responsible to the public or
the Congress for consistency with other trail management
policies. Allowing non-Federal organizations to be held
responsible for land management decisions made in the
comprehensive plan also raises concerns under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. We recommend that the bill be amended
to provide that the comprehensive management plan would be
prepared by the administering Secretary in consultation with
the management entity and that the secretary would submit the
plan to Congress.
Our second concern deals with how the trail would be
administered. H.R. 588 requires the administering Secretary to
cooperate with a--quote, a, unquote, competent trail-wide
nonprofit organization. This presumably implies that only one
nonprofit organization will be involved in the administration
of the 6,000-plus mile trail. We believe this is unduly
restrictive.
We recommend changing the bill to include one or more
private non-Federal entities, which would then provide the
opportunity to optimize the benefits to the public and build
collaborative stewardship among the public, the nonprofit
organizations and the Federal Government.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be
glad to take any questions you might have.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Joslin can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note with interest
the testimony from Mr. Joslin, the Deputy Chief, and I
appreciate the testimony. I refer specifically to page 4, Mr.
Chairman, where he comments about the relationship between the
nonprofit and the Park Service and Forest Service.
Mr. Joslin, Deputy Joslin, would you suggest there ought to
be more clarification here, that the Park Service and Forest
Service ought to be in a coordinating role of more than one
nonprofit, so they--is that your suggestion here?
Mr. Joslin. No, sir. The suggestion there--the Park Service
would have the administration over this, but the suggestion
there is that we include language which would not specifically
say, one, which is somewhat limiting, although the language may
encompass that now. We believe it should be clarified.
Mr. Vento. Director Stevenson, how many nonprofits work on,
for instance, the Appalachian Trail? Isn't there a multiple
number?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir, there are many, many nonprofits
that work on it. Our experience has been if you have a single
group, who is the lead group, that it makes it significantly
easier for us to work with them, and it is their responsibility
to work cooperatively with the smaller groups and get them
together to have a single opinion.
Mr. Vento. You differ with the Forest Service testimony
here?
Ms. Stevenson. It is a difference of opinion, yes, sir.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Joslin, does the Forest Service have any
nonprofit groups that they work with?
Mr. Joslin. Yes, we do, and in connection with the ATC, we
agree with the way that works, but there are--the language in
there, all we are saying is, if you have the language as it is
now, perhaps you might not be able to incorporate----
Mr. Vento. You are saying you can do one if you want to do
one, but you ought to have the flexibility, is what you are
saying, so there would be no objection to that?
Mr. Joslin. That is correct.
Mr. Vento. Director Stevenson.
Ms. Stevenson. Actually, we would have an objection. We
feel very strongly there needs to be a lead group.
Mr. Vento. But you can select or not select the lead group.
Ms. Stevenson. That leaves you with the position of
choosing among them, and if there is a lead group that has to
be formed from a larger group, they among themselves decide who
the lead group is and agree upon a method of dealing with us.
Otherwise, you have enormous difficulty in relating to a large
number of people.
Mr. Vento. I think the concern is, at the end of the day,
it is a coordinating role, and if in fact the designated
nonprofit were not to be performing, there ought to at least be
the recognition that the Forest Service or the Park Service can
in fact work with the individuals. I realize it is more
difficult to do in that vein, but I don't know that there have
been--I guess there have been some problems with regards to the
Appalachian Trail; is that correct?
Ms. Stevenson. No, the Appalachian Trail has worked out
very well with a single coordinating group.
Mr. Vento. Has that--is it designated in the law, per se?
Ms. Stevenson. I don't believe so.
Mr. Vento. If it is worked out, I don't understand what the
concern is about the added flexibility being added here. If you
can do it without the designation in law, why would you want to
limit your flexibility?
Ms. Stevenson. Our experience was that that was come to
after a long and arduous journey. There were many times there
were significant differences of opinion. All we are trying to
suggest is that we could circumvent some of those problems by
saying up front that the groups would choose a single
representative to represent all of them and then we would have
one relationship, rather than many.
Mr. Vento. In any case, I think an important point was made
here when it was indicated that a significant number of
volunteers helped maintain and do a significant number of tasks
that relate to enhancing the quality of the trails, that the
Forest Service and the Park Service both have had significant
volunteer efforts to maintain the trails, is that correct.
Ms. Stevenson. That is correct.
Mr. Vento. And I see Mr. Joslin is nodding his head too.
Unfortunately, we are on an audio system.
Mr. Joslin. Yes.
Mr. Vento. With regards to the language I referred to, with
donations of easements, you obviously favor not having that
language in the bill that is in the bill now, the limitations
on donations and cooperative agreement.
Ms. Stevenson. We feel it would be very advantageous for us
to have the ability to use every tool at our disposal to make
this trail work and therefore they should be included as
options for us.
Mr. Vento. To what extent--in terms of this cooperative
agreement and conveying to the nonprofits the responsibility
here, to what extent would the Park Service or Forest Service
be involved in dealing with, for instance, State parks or State
trails or other national units that might be--for instance,
BLM, wouldn't the Park Service or Forest Service need to be
involved at that particular point and work very closely in
order to gain the confidence of those groups in providing
easements and working with you and signing?
Ms. Stevenson. I think I understand your question. We would
cooperate with other Federal agencies and with State parks to
the fullest extent along the trail.
Mr. Vento. You both spoke of the fact of the comprehensive
plan, but who in the end would be responsible for preparing and
submitting the comprehensive plan?
Ms. Stevenson. The National Park Service in this case.
Mr. Vento. Even though the work would be done by the
nonprofit group, I assume most of this is in here in this way
to avoid the cost concerns; and if it were, I suppose, under a
different period of time, we might look at it differently. The
private group, would they have to comply with, for instance,
all the environmental laws, like NEPA.
Ms. Stevenson. We would prepare such a plan in cooperation
with them and assure that all the appropriate laws were met.
Then we would be the one who actually had to submit it, that is
the process we choose now.
Mr. Vento. You would have to go through NEPA yourself.
Ms. Stevenson. We would meet all Federal laws.
Mr. Vento. You used NEPA for the study, didn't you.
Ms. Stevenson. I believe so.
Mr. Vento. The question I would ask Mr. Bereuter, do you
know what the breakdown is in terms of the motorized miles on
the 6,000-mile trail.
Ms. Stevenson. Actually, it is in the report itself.
Mr. Vento. I will look in there then, if you don't know it
off the top of your head, because my light has been on for a
minute.
Mr. Joslin. Sixty-five percent of it is either paved or
graveled.
Mr. Vento. What does that mean? I mean, for instance, the
trail I bike on is paved, this long trail that I do in the
gateway, isn't necessarily motorized though.
Ms. Stevenson. And we may not have that detail. Page 20 of
the report has the trail statistics for paved, gravel, and
trails and sidewalk.
Mr. Vento. Even though it is paved or gravel doesn't mean--
we have a lot of limestone paths and bike paths, for instance,
in Wisconsin. I am from Minnesota, but I do go over there. So I
am pointing out that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate it
is motorized. In fact, we can't have motorized. In fact, I
would get the roller-bladers off there. If you ever tried to
pass one of them, they are all over the place.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Bereuter. No questions.
Mr. Hansen. Does the gentleman from Illinois have any
questions?
Mr. Vento. The question he should be asking is on the
nomenclature there.
Mr. Hansen. I don't think he wants to. If I may ask, a
major provision of H.R. 588 exempts the American Discovery
Trail from land acquisition. The testimony states that the
National Park Service believes the national discovery trail
should not be exempt from Section 7(e) and (f) of the National
Trails System Act. This creates the fear that private
landowners have concerning this bill or further land
acquisition in general.
All you have done is leave Section 7(g) in the bill, which
would not allow condemnation. If you are not going to condemn
things, is it the intent of the National Park Service to
eventually acquire the trail right away for the American
Discovery Trails and any subsequent national discovery trails?
Ms. Stevenson. May I ask Tom Ross, who is one of our trail
specialists and very familiar with the Act to answer that?
Mr. Hansen. Bring him up. Identify yourself and grab that
mike on the other side. Tell us who you are for the record.
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Tom Ross. I am the Acting Assistant Director for Recreation and
Conservation Programs with the National Park Service. I believe
the question you raised was in regard to our request to have
authority to use those two subsections, under Section 7. They
would allow the opportunity for us to participate with the
trail organizations in cooperative agreements and also for the
Federal Government to carry out land transfers under that
authority. Specifically in our testimony, we are in agreement
with the bill, which precludes any kind of Federal acquisition
authority for this particular trail.
Mr. Hansen. Do you envision possibly at a later date the
National Park Service will ask Congress to authorize and
appropriate funds for acquisition.
Mr. Ross. No, sir. The intent of the entire Discovery Trail
category is to build upon the efforts of State, local and the
nonprofit groups that are involved in establishing trails and
not to create any new federally owned areas.
Mr. Hansen. Well, do you have any further questions, Mr.
Vento.
Mr. Vento. I just wanted to comment to my colleague in
Illinois, there is an Illinois boyhood site for Lincoln in
Springfield and one in Kentucky, so there are three different
sites. I was trying to recall what the circumstance was.
With regards to your last question, Mr. Chairman, I think
the issue that is going to arise is that, of course, if you
build this framework, this 6,000-mile framework, it is possible
States or local governments or nonprofits will, in fact, fill
in the areas and help you. Of course, that does arise.
What comes back to us at that particular time, then, as we
were to work with that, would be the question of operating
expenses, which have greatly been diminished by all the
volunteer efforts. This is the logical extension in terms of
what we are doing. There are some questions about the conflicts
that occur.
When I joked about the roller-bladers, they also have--they
are doing ways of inventing. I mean, once you put the trails in
place, you end up with a tremendous number of people. So the
caring capacity issue with regard to the trails, especially
around some urban areas, is a real important question, you
know. So I just would point that out in terms of trying to deal
with these.
I mean, there are a lot of questions that arise with regard
to motorized use. For instance, if you are actually using
freeways or highways, we have fences around them so that people
aren't walking around on them. So in these cases, you would not
have a contiguous area you could walk in. Is that the point,
Ms. Stevenson, or the other member of the Park Service? Can you
answer that question? How do you anticipate use of the trail
differing in terms of the motorized use, other types of uses?
In some areas, you would not be able to take your roller
blades; is that right.
Mr. Ross. That is correct, sir. I think, as the study
indicates, a good portion of the American Discovery Trail,
initially, will be along roadways and sides of roadways, and
that by its nature would not be able to preclude any sort of
motorized use.
Mr. Vento. You can bike though, can't you?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Vento. That is the important thing.
Mr. Hansen. We have always been kind of concerned about the
trails and I think the general consensus is we feel good about
them and they are a part of our culture and history and that
type of thing. On the other side of the coin, they seem to be
like many government programs. They start out very innocuous
and before we long we are pouring money into them and I think
that is what Mr. Bereuter is trying to work out.
On the great western trail we worked on, we have
scrupulously tried to make sure we are not pouring any Federal
money into this thing. I cannot believe the amount of people
that go up and clear that trail and they have started societies
and organizations and memberships and fraternities and the
whole 9 yards about it, and part of the thing in life is to
have on your badge that you have both hiked the Appalachian
trail, what do they call it, the Pacific Crest Trail and also
the Great Western Trail, and I admire the folks who can do it.
I guess we get a little nervous if we anticipate, one,
private property being desecrated without a willing seller or
willing right of way and, two, the money that has to come out
of Congress. On the other side of the coin, there are things
that are worth appropriating money for because of the
historical nature of it.
Mr. Weller, if I may point out, there seems to be some
concern on names in your particular area. Some of us, we have
heard, there might be an amendment to change it to Land of
Lincoln National Historic Trail. Have you heard that, and if
you haven't, would you agree to it?
Mr. Weller. I was not aware of a Land of Lincoln National
Historic Trail and the sponsor of that particular amendment has
not discussed it with me.
Mr. Vento. It is getting better all the time, isn't it?
Mr. Weller. I am proud Congressman Lipinski represents the
area to the north and the city of Chicago is working closely
with me, and I am anxious to work with members of the committee
in a bipartisan way to move this legislation forward. Clearly,
Abraham Lincoln played a very important role for this Nation
and Illinois is the land of Lincoln. I am anxious to work with
this committee as we move through this process, but I do
believe the Lincoln name as part of this national historic
trail would be important. I think it is important he have his
name as part of that name.
Mr. Hansen. We appreciate Katherine Stevenson and Robert
Joslin for being with us, and the gentleman, is it Watt?
Mr. Ross. It is Ross, sir.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you for your testimony. Excuse me for not
picking that up.
Our second panel is Bill Theis, David Lillard and Reese
Lukei. If they would come forward. I understand Mr. Pickett
wanted to be here to introduce one of our witnesses. I haven't
seen him yet.
We have room for our third panel, Mr. Leonard Lock. Mr.
Lock, if you would like to come up, we might as well have you
all at the same time. We are grateful for our friend from
Virginia, Mr. Pickett. You can join us up here, if you would
like to or wherever you are comfortable. We will turn to our
friend from Virginia, colleague, Owen Pickett, to any opening
statement he may have and any introduction of witnesses he may
want to cover
STATEMENT OF THE HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Pickett. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much
for this opportunity. I know you are having a very busy hearing
this morning, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to
come here and introduce to the committee Mr. Reese Lukei of
Virginia Beach. He is a gentleman who not only talks about
matters involving the National Trail System, but I think
perhaps his record of actually using the system either equals
or exceeds that of just about anyone else I have ever had
occasion to be associated with. So he comes here today with a
clear and fully justified bias in favor of the National Trail
System, and yet he brings an objective and realistic view that
has been built upon, his own experience in using the system,
and in helping others and encouraging others to use it also. So
I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Lukei here today.
I commend him for coming and lending his support, and I
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
present him and tell you a little bit about his background in
the National Park System and what it means to him and to our
Nation.
[The statement of Mr. Pickett follows:]
Statement of Hon. Owen B. Pickett, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia
The American Discovery Trail, administered by the American
Trails Society, is our nation's first coast to coast multi-use
hiking trail. The trail is a 6,356 mile long route that links a
patchwork of trails--35 percent existing, the others newly
created--that will serve as a connector between the east and
west coasts of the United States and inspire interest in
outdoors by providing new and better places to explore nature.
Although the trail has already been mapped across America, it
still needs to be authorized by this Committee in order to be
included as a part of the American Trails System.
I was introduced to the American Discovery Trail project by
a constituent of mine, Mr. Reese Lukei. Through his efforts, I
became a cosponsor of H.R. 3250, the ``American Discovery
Trails Act 1996,'' in the 104th Congress, and I am proud to be
an original cosponsor of this legislation in the 105th
Congress. I am very pleased to have one of my constituents in
Washington, today to testify on behalf of this most worthwhile
legislation.
Mr. Lukei, an avid trail enthusiast, has been involved in
community, state, and national trail projects for several
years. He is currently the National Coordinator for the
American Discovery Trail, the Vice President of Virginia
Trails, an active volunteer with the Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is licensed by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to trap and band
raptors. Mr. Lukei has received numerous awards from the
American Hiking Society, the Daughters of the American
Revolution, and the Fish and Wildlife Service for outstanding
service and contribution to the trails community. And perhaps
the most important of all, he has hiked in all 50 states, every
province and territory in Canada, except Newfoundland, seven
countries in Europe, and all 2,100 miles of the Appalachian
Trail. If this does not make Mr. Lukei an expert on the subject
of trails . . . I don't know what would!
Reese, if I missed anything I apologize, but with limited
time and such exceptional background and credentials, it would
take me the rest of the morning to present your achievements to
the Committee. I would like to reaffirm my strong support for
this legislation and thank the Chairman for allowing to speak
today.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being
with us. Mr. Weller, did you want to have any introductory
remarks of this panel?
Mr. Weller. Well, thank you, I made reference to Mr. Lock
who is part of your panel, I want to thank you for the
opportunity for him to testify. Leonard Lock is chairman of the
city of Ottawa Historic Preservation Commission and is a
Lincoln scholar and has been a real leader in conservation
efforts and open space initiatives. I also want to point out
that the Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor, which has
come up today, resulted from the efforts of people like Leonard
Lock.
Leonard was one of the leaders, almost a generation ago, in
helping to establish the national heritage corridor and with
the sponsorship of Tom Corcoran, who served in the Congress and
was my mentor in the political process. I want to welcome Mr.
Lock and also thank the Chairman for his opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. You folks heard the rules. Can you
handle it in 5 minutes? If you can't, let me know, we will give
you a couple minutes longer, but really that is our rules, 5
minutes. You see the light in front of you, it's just like a
traffic light. Green, go; yellow start winding up; and red cut
it off. We don't give you a ticket if you go over, especially
in a loose hearing like this one, but we appreciate if you stay
somewhat close. We will start with Mr. Lillard and just go
across.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LILLARD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY
Mr. Lillard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David
Lillard. I am the President of the American Hiking Society. I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee today. First, I will address the issue of
establishing the national discovery trail category within the
National Trail System Act and then speak briefly on the
authorization of the American Discovery Trail.
The National Trail System Act has made possible 20 long-
distance, primarily multi-State trails, but the current
construction of the Act does not fully address the changing
demand for outdoor recreation in America, which is at an all
time high. As called for by President Ronald Regan's Commission
on Outdoors, today's families need outdoor recreation
opportunities that are closer to home.
Also outlined by President Reagan's Commission, trails and
greenways provide cost-effective recreation and bring focus to
local and regional park planning by linking existing parks and
forests with places where people live and work. The idea of
linking people with parks and linking existing parks and trails
with one another truly makes a system of the National Trail
System, rather than a collection of trails, yet no long
distance trail designation within the current Act encourages or
accommodates trails which are developed for such purposes.
So the national discovery trail category fulfills the
Reagan Commission's recommendations for such linkages. In
addition to linking existing parks and trails with one another
and with communities, discovery trails by their intent also
link outdoor recreation with local commerce. By bringing
discovery trails into cities, small town and suburbs, local
businesses have provided a regional focus for commercial
activity.
Discovery trails also promise a vehicle for promoting
regional tourism, an opportunity already seized upon by the
tourism offices of the States of Nebraska, Colorado and West
Virginia. So although the benefits and primary use of discovery
trails would be local and regional, the new category of trail
does indeed recognize corridors that are nationally
significant. Discovery trails are nationally significant
because they provide the possibility of linkages we have talked
about. They invite States and local governments to think
cooperatively about a national trail while making their own
decisions that meet their own needs and they allow Americans to
discover for themselves the regional diversity which is
America, a discovery that will foster an appreciation of shared
American values and an understanding of regional differences,
whether East and West or urban and rural.
Although they are nationally significant, discovery trails
do not require Federal management on trail lanes outside of
Federal acreage. In fact, as we discussed, Discovery Trail
categories require in place a citizen-led, nonprofit
organization to support the trail before it is even designated
by Congress. Still, there is a very important Federal role in
Discovery Trails, that of the convenient and the technical
assistance.
The Federal Government has a vast range of expertise and
experience that would help State, local and other Federal
decisionmakers, as well as nonprofit organizations to
coordinate their activities and their planning. This is a bold
idea for Federal involvement in trails. It says to Americans,
if your community wants our assistance, we will participate in
your efforts. It also challenges States which develop discovery
trails to utilize innovative means for conserving trail
corridors, including conservation easements, voluntary transfer
of development rights, privately funded land trust and
conservancy, so I stress local and voluntary and private and
local involvement.
This emphasis on linkages makes the most of the American
investment in parks and trails, the reliance on local
decisionmaking, and the private sector involved in the
administration of Discovery Trails have been enthusiastically
embraced by the trail community and the Members of this
chamber, an enthusiasm illustrated by the more than 50
cosponsors of the measure.
On the authorization of the American Discovery Trail within
the new category, the ADT fully meets the criteria for the
National Discovery Trail designation in H.R. 588. First, it
meets the linkage criteria by linking together cities of
Washington, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Denver and also links
nationally significant trails as has been outlined.
Second, it does meet the qualification criteria of a
nonprofit organization. The ADT Society is incorporated as a
501(c)(3) and was formed specifically to promote and care for
this trail. Clearly, at the local level people want this trail.
Third, it meets interstate criterias as has been clearly
outlined.
In closing, the American Discovery Trail is a nationally
significant grand idea. It presents new ways of getting big
things done by putting them into the hands of people who care
about them the most. It has generated a lot of excitement
within the States long underserved by Federal recreation
programs, such as Nebraska and Kansas and others and these
States deserve our gratitude and encouragement, along with
Federal recognition and assistance on the project. ADT was
ahead of its time when it was conceived, but this Congress
gives us hope that its time has come. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Lillard can be found at the end of
the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Lukei.
STATEMENT OF MR. LUKEI, JR., NATIONAL COORDINATOR, AMERICAN
DISCOVERY TRIAL SOCIETY
Mr. Lukei. Chairman Hansen and members of the subcommittee,
I am Reese Lukei, Jr.. I am and have been for the past 7 years,
the national coordinator of the American Discovery Trail, a
project begun in 1989 by the American Hiking Society and
Backpacker Magazine to, one, establish our Nation's first
coast-to-coast multiuse recreational trail through a nationwide
grass-roots effort.
Two, connect as many existing local and regional national
trails together as possible. Three, route the trail through
large metropolitan cities, bringing it closer to where people
live. And, four, provide encouragement to local citizen groups
and municipalities to develop and maintain trails in their
area. Under the National Trail System Act, eight national
scenic trails have been created under the model established by
the trail and are mostly located in remote areas, avoiding
urban areas.
In the past 30 years, a number of studies by Federal
agencies, the outdoor recreation industry and the housing
industry, all indicate that recreational trail use has
increased tremendously and is expected to continue to do so,
and that people want to recreate closer to where they live. The
proposed long distance trail category, national discovery
trails, and the American Discovery Trail, will recognize these
trends.
The ADT is a first long-distance trail that has been
intentionally designed to link trails together and to pass
through or near large metropolitan areas. Thirty-two million
Americans live within 20 miles of the 6,000, 356-mile route of
the ADT. The American Discovery Trail connects five of the
eight national scenic trails, 10 of the 12 national historic
trails and over 200 local and regional trails.
Two of those trails are the proposed Lincoln National
Historic Trails, which--maybe it is going to be Lincoln
National Historic Trail, which Congressman Weller is here to
speak to today and the great western trail, which had
legislation successfully sponsored last year by Chairman
Hansen. This has been accomplished through the involvement of
several thousand citizen volunteers under the outstanding
leadership of our 15 State coordinators who paid all their own
expenses.
Much credit is also due to the local, State and Federal
land managers, town councils, planning commissions and economic
development and tourism divisions, for their cooperation,
assistance and encouragement. We have been sensitive to private
landowners with whom we have held many meetings.
Of the 6,356 miles of the American Discovery Trail, only 58
miles are on private property and all of that is on existing
trails and with the landowners' permission. The ADT has
provided incentive to many local projects, such as the Ute Pass
Corridor Trail in the Pikes Peak area of Colorado.
I request that the written statement of Richard V. Bratton,
Mayor of Green Mountain Falls and Chair of the Pikes Peak Area
Council of Governments be made a part of the public record and
I quote from his written statement. ``The ADT will provide a
unique and important connection between urban and back-country
trail systems. ADT will help us to realize a nonmotorized link
between the second largest city in Colorado, Colorado Springs,
and the mountain communities that surround Pikes Peak. The
concept of the ADT has already been instrumental in assisting
us in our local fund-raising efforts, supporting grant requests
and capturing the interest of State, county and local elected
officials. The ADT is key to our success.'' That is the end of
his quote.
[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Lukei. The ADT is already producing economic benefits
for the communities along its route. Ellen Dudley and Eric
Seaborg, who were referred to earlier as having written the
American Discoveries book of their experience, who laid the
foundation of the ADT's route in 1990 and 1991 scouting
expedition, comment in their written statement to the
subcommittee that trails attract tourists and businesses that
cater to trail travelers which are al-
ready springing up on many sections of the American Discovery
Trail.
On behalf of the ADT State coordinators, the thousands of
citizen volunteers and the land managers who have worked hard
for 8 years to create the American Discovery Trail, a trail
that millions of Americans will use, I request that you
recommend to your colleagues in the House of Representatives
the passage of House bill H.R. 588, the National Discovery
Trails Act of 1997.
Thank you for allowing me to present my comments and I
believe I can answer some of the questions that were previously
presented to some of the prior committee members.
[The statement of Mr. Lukei can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Theis.
STATEMENT OF BILL THEIS, MEMBER, S.T.O.P. (STOP TAKING OUR
PROPERTIES) STEERING COMMITTEE
Mr. Theis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am a former teacher, turned businessman. The
property rights movement first attracted my attention in 1989
as a result of proposed legislation that would have expanded
the Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore in northwest Indiana. In
1994, I was elected to serve a 4-year term as the trustee/
assessor of Pine Township in Porter County, Indiana, and
currently I serve the property rights movement as a member of
the Stop Taking Our Property Steering Committee and the Great
Lakes Regional Chair for the Alliance for America.
I come before you today in total support of recreational
trails. My own youth has very fond memories of summers I spent
hiking the Appalachian trail when it was privately owned. This
was back in the very early sixties, late fifties. However, I
find myself philosophically opposed to the idea the Federal
Government should be in the recreation business. I can't find
any authority for this type of action in the Constitution.
Further, I find myself opposed to the concept of federally
subsidized recreation. My own personal passion is fishing. One
of the best kept secrets in Northwest Indiana is the Lake
Michigan fishing. We have wonderful lake trout and steelhead
and king salmon and cohoe salmon. I fish on two teams that fish
the tournaments, and I would not come before this body and ask
you to subsidize my hobby, and I don't think that the Federal
Government should be getting involved in subsidizing other
people's hobbies.
It is very difficult for me to understand why this bill is
even being considered when congressional concern seems so
focused on balancing the budget without making cuts in social
security and Medicare. Therefore, I must stand firmly in
opposition to House bill 588. However, I realize there are
people who are philosophically opposed to my particular stand
on this issue and if you do choose to move forward with the
legislation, I urge you to give serious consideration to the
following suggestions.
The bill states no lands or interests outside the exterior
boundaries can be taken. There is a problem here. In 1966, we
could exchange the words we have heard here today so far on the
trail system with the words, ``Indiana Dunes National Lake
Shore,'' where there was not an intent to take anybody's home.
It was going to be strictly willing seller. It was going to be
strictly voluntary and strictly cooperative.
The end result was Thursday, September 5th, the U.S. Park
Service evicts woman and son. Despite all the promises, things
tend to change in Congress over the years, and I don't know if
anybody on this committee was here when that happened, but this
is one of over 700--and this is national parks figures, people
who have lost their homes and business in the Indiana Dunes
National Lake Shore. And I would like to present the Chairman,
I will leave it with the committee, a video tape of the Federal
marshals pulling the moving van up in front of the house,
escorting her out of the house and moving her lifetime
possessions out.
Other examples--this type of legislation is always subject
to future editions and changes and other examples include view
scapes, sound scapes, easements, covenants, buffer zones, and,
yes, the exemption from condemnation gets lifted. The
Appalachian trail serves as a good example of how original
trail acts tend to get expanded by these types of legislative
devices.
I have with me today Mr. David Guernsey, who can answer
questions in detail because he was here when this happened and
he also made this a part of the record of this committee, and
we talk here that the provisions in National Trail System Act
of 1968, the Park Service was to put up a 1,000-foot corridor
to protect the Appalachian trail.
They offered to donate the land and the Park Service said,
no, and I see my yellow light went on here and I want to get
some other things so maybe we can address that in questions.
Two, the second suggestion I have is we put a sunset clause of
some sort on there so that this proposed plan doesn't drag on
and on and on and on for years. Thirdly, the provision to enter
into arrangements with the trail-wide nonprofit organization is
just unacceptable. If the trail system is to have any chance of
success, I would suggest we look at the Indiana Rails to Trails
Act that was passed last summer. It was very, very successful
and it was agreed to by all and there are several things in
there that I bring to your attention, the first of which is
that any proposed trail had to have the official approval and
participation of every unit of local government through which
the trail passed.
I have heard lots of testimony here today that everybody is
in favor of this. Nobody asked me. I did an instant poll with
300 property rights and resource organizations on Sunday when I
was telling them about this bill and not a single one of the
organizations was contacted or asked about this. Despite the
immense amount of planning, these groups are being ignored. If
it is to have any chance of success, that needs to be included.
There is also a little thing called a fence requirement that
takes care of the liability.
Any property owner, who is adjacent, and that is an issue
we haven't addressed here today, is the adjacent property
owners, have issues of privacy and liability. In Indiana, any
property owner who requests a fence, that is a trail
organization, is responsible for putting that privacy fence up,
which then, of course, limits the liability. So it brings us
down to the three basic questions: Do we want it, and who is
we? Does this include all affected parties? Do we need it? And
I think we need to differentiate, especially in today's
budgetary times, between the wants and the needs. We face that
every day with our own township.
And thirdly, can we afford it? There is no mention in the
bill about moneys, but I am already hearing a figure of 360,000
here, 200,000 there, so this committee has a really tough
decision to make. Is the trail more important than our parents'
social security? Is the trail more important than the medicare?
Is the trail more important than maybe giving some of the
taxpayer money back to the American public? Thank you for
allowing me to testify today. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Theis can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Theis.
Mr. Lock, we will recognize you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. LOCK
Mr. Lock. Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, my name is
Leonard Lock. I am from Ottawa, Illinois, which is the site of
the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, and since there is a question
on the floor concerning the name of the trail, I will try to
address that issue, if I may.
Tom Gilbert, who I talk to on the telephone all the time,
wrote: ``As you know, Lincoln heritage is one of the several
important themes of the proposed Illinois National Historic
Trail, along with Mississippian Indian culture, French
exploration and transportation.'' I am going to submit a
proposal that will include all of those, and, also, eventually,
include the Congressman from Kentucky, that the Lincoln
National Historical Trail, this would be Phase 1. Phase 2 would
go from Springfield to Vincennes, Indiana, to of course, his
birth place in Kentucky. All of these could be incorporated.
This could be phase one.
Lincoln was a Member of Congress, as you know, and he made
a very important statement June 20, 1848, when he said that
sugar had been, for the first time, shipped from New Orleans to
Buffalo, New York. There was a navigational gap in the Nation,
and the canal, which is the ditch that put Chicago on the map,
made that become a reality.
Most of this information is included in my written
statement, and I am going to include that so that this should
be read to get the full impact. And as Congressmen, I am not
trying to tell you what to do, but Abraham Lincoln was a master
at satire, and some of these were hilarious. What he did to the
former Attorney General that was a member of the legislature in
the old capital in Vandalia, Illinois, is hilarious. I urge you
to read it. He also did the same thing to David Dudley Field at
the Chicago Rivers and Harbors Convention in 1847, where 10,000
people came.
Lincoln wanted to be Illinois DeWitt Clinton. When he first
ran for public office, and incidentally he was defeated, he
said he supported internal improvements. He never changed that,
to his Presidency and his two annual messages to Congress. He
told his friend Joshua Speed in Springfield that ran a store,
he wanted to be Illinois DeWitt Clinton. And he also made a
speech in Vandalia, he made it in Congress and he made it for
the Chicago Rivers and Harbors Convention. So he was associated
with the canal.
For example, he came to hearings in my hometown of Ottawa
for legal claims against the canal. He also took a trip down
the canal with his family. He was in Washington, DC as a
Congressman. He went to Buffalo, and then he came down to the
Great Lakes and went down the entire canal on October 8, 1848,
and he went as far as Peoria, of course from LaSalle, Peru, he
went by steamboat, then went to Peoria, Illinois, and then by
stagecoach to his own home.
And here, to include everyone, for example, if I just may
take, the State of Illinois obtains its name from the great
Village of the Illinois, from which there was an SOS out a few
years ago, that is Save Our Site, and it was purchased by the
State, and that is where the Mission of the Immaculate
Conception occurred, and that is Pere Marquette. The other
trails would be the Chicago Portage, Pere Marquette, W.D.
Boyce, and Chief Shabbonah and Lincoln-Douglas Debate Trail.
And here are all the various things regarding the entire
trail, the Illinois-Michigan Canal, the Illinois River, and the
branch to Springfield. Presidential messages to the Congress
are rarely noted for their literary significance, but the
annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862, is Lincoln's
literary masterpiece.
In that, President Lincoln said (Dec. 1, 1862): ``The
military and commercial importance of enlarging the Illinois-
Michigan Canal and improving the Illinois River is presented in
the report of Colonel Webster to the Secretary of War, and now
transmitted to Congress. I respectfully ask attention to it.''
The story of the canal and the Illinois River is a story of
Illinois and the Nation. This historic travel began the
transformation of a backwards wilderness into the world's
richest reservoir of civilization's blessing. The work of the
pioneers should be preserved and woven into the cultural life
of present and future citizens of the Nation, for school
children in Illinois and across the Nation and throughout the
world sing:
``We have an old mule named Sal. We want to ride on Mr.
Lincoln's national historic trail.'' And in conclusion, this
may be one of the logos for the Lincoln National Historic
Trail, which would eventually include Illinois, Indiana and
Kentucky. In conclusion, I might add, I have been told many
times that a foreign visitor coming in to the United States is
first interested in seeing Disney Land, second, the Lincoln
site.
[The statement of Mr. Lock can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman, I commented earlier about
the motorized versus nonmotorized aspect. How do you envision,
Mr. Lukei, the relationship in terms of motorized versus other
uses of the trail? Important uses like straight line roller
blades.
Mr. Lukei. Actual recreational and motorized uses only two
or three small sections of the trail, one in southwest Utah, on
the Piute Trail, which is actually an ATV trail, and the other
are two trails in which snowmobiles are allowed. One is a
Hoover Valley Nature Trail and one of the other trails in Iowa.
There is a distinction between motorized recreational use.
We are on a number of roads. They are mostly back country,
farm-to-market roads, on which recreational vehicles, such as
ATVs and snowmobiles are illegal, that is why they are called
off-road vehicles. Therefore, the roads we are on are roads
which hiking, bicycling and horseback riding are legal
activities.
I would also point out that while currently the route is
about one one-third on existing trails, one-third on some type
of dirt or gravel road and many are roads that have limited
access like Forest Service roads, and in Nebraska, the
irrigation system out there has maintenance roads which allow
recreational use on them and we follow some of those irrigation
roadways, and the others are back-country roads that, again,
recreational motor use are not permitted on.
So this is intended to be a nonmotorized recreational
trail. There is very little conflict in those areas with
respect to motorized use. Actually, in Mr. Hansen's State of
Utah, we were intentionally routed on the Piute Trail near
Circleville, by the Forest Service and by the local citizens
who built that trail.
Mr. Vento. I understand that. I know even in the State of
Minnesota, we have 15,000 miles of snowmobile trail and
sometimes there is a common use with the snowmobile and cross-
country skiers and other types of uses. And we found out,
because snowmobiles have sort of a cleat in the track that they
actually cause a lot of damage to the trail, you know, so they
wear it down and the maintenance costs have gone up, but they
do pay a certain fee and so forth so it can be maintained. But
it is increasingly an issue even there, much less within the
voyagers.
Mr. Theis, we were pleased to find our way up here together
today and I read your testimony and I noticed that you feel the
Federal Government shouldn't be involved in any type of
recreation activities because you think we have more important
tasks. I suppose you made an exception for fishing, didn't you.
Mr. Theis. As a matter of fact, I didn't.
Mr. Vento. We were talking about fishing in Lake Michigan
and we talked about doing it in Lake Superior or some other
puddle in Minnesota, but you realize there is a lot of effort
and investment in terms of recreation in sport fishing by the
Federal Government, Fish and Wildlife Service, and, you know,
dealing with invasive species and a lot of other aspects.
Obviously fishing in Lake Michigan would look a lot
different if we didn't do something about things that occur
there, ruffies and the invasive species. I am trying to think
of the other muscles, zebra muscles. Actually, you think we
ought to get out of it and let someone else do it. You were
talking about sport fishing. You are not a commercial
fisherman, are you?
Mr. Theis. I am sport fisher. It is my understanding in
Indiana the stalking and taking care of the lake is done by the
DNR and we are required to pay a fishing license and the better
part of that money goes toward that activity, so in a sense,
all the sports fishermen are paying their own way.
Mr. Vento. We would all like to think that, but if you look
a little closer, you will find that general taxpayers pay a
lot. We would like to think they could pay their own way, and I
suppose some trail users feel they pay their way when they pay
the income tax, too.
Mr. Theis. The State DNR, at least in Indiana, is
constantly making the legislature to raise the fishing license
so they can cover the cost, so I think a significant part is
taken care of that way.
Mr. Vento. We hear a lot about it. We went through a
process of raising fees for entrance users and any other way we
can extract it to the point we are now getting backlash from
some corridors, Mr. Chairman, about that, as they are
implemented. It is interesting to me, the Forest Service, they
always look better in Washington than they look on the ground
in Minnesota and I would say in Utah it is different, but in
any case, I think they pay 10 or 15 percent at the most of what
the cost is of running some of the agencies. And I think the
same would be true of some of the forests or the Fish and
Wildlife Service, which we as sports persons depend upon. I
don't object to it, I just wanted to make the observation. I
understand your concerns and I just think that that one ought
to receive a little more consideration.
Mr. Hansen. Did you want to respond, Mr. Theis?
Mr. Theis. Yes, I will respond and another comment comes
to mind, Mr. Chairman, if I can take a minute to do that. I
think maybe in the interest of fairness, if we are going to
have fishing and hunting licenses for fishing and hunting
people, maybe we should consider having hiking licenses for the
hiking people so it is at least partially subsidized. But on
another thought, as I listen here today, and I have done my
research, a thought has come to mind. There is an alternative
here to all of this.
If nobody is objecting to the idea of a trail of a national
significance and historic and good idea, the objection is what
it might become above and beyond that. Well, that if that is
really the only purpose for it, maybe we don't need
legislation, and the idea came to mind, as Mr. Bereuter talked
about the Lewis and Clark Trail. Senate Resolution 57 said God
bless the Lewis and Clark Trail. It is nationally significant.
It is wonderful and we want to recognize it, and that was the
end of it. And perhaps with the trail, all we need is a
resolution, rather than a legislation that might be expanded
and eventually lead to condemnation of property and whatever.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, we can reduce ourselves to passing
commemoratives and probably everybody would be happy because we
wouldn't do anything for or to someone. I want to comment on
the Illinois River Trail and I appreciate the work that has
been done by the witness, Mr. Lock, on this issue, but much of
what you talk about, of course, is the Illinois-Michigan Canal,
and so I guess, again, I will reiterate, you did explain a
logic where you were going to connect the birth place and the
boyhood home and the Springfield site so maybe you want to
comment about that further for me.
Mr. Lock. Yes, I would. I have a photostatic copy of--the
Lincoln National Life Foundation has done a study including all
the trails, and so has Lloyd Ostenkoff in the back of his book,
regarding Lincoln and his entire life and that includes,
Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky, the major States. That should
be a goal of Congress, very long-term, and this could certainly
be phase one, and I think it is equally as important. I think
the debate site in Ottawa is equally as important as his birth
place in Kentucky and I would support both.
If I may enter into the record, I did bring this along for
the Library of Congress and all of Congress. It is called
Lincoln's Connection with the Illinois Michigan Canal and (also
includes) the Illinois River, his return to Congress and his
Invention and there was an Abe Lincoln boat that went out of
Morris, Illinois, and this is available and I will give it to
the Chairman for everyone in Congress.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Weller.
Mr. Weller. Just a brief comment. I think Mr. Lock, who is
a scholar and a noted historian in the area with his knowledge
of Lincoln, has done a fine job of reinforcing Abraham
Lincoln's connection with Illinois and an area that would be
included in the national trail, and I want to thank you for
including Mr. Lock and giving him the opportunity to testify
today.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Pickett.
Mr. Pickett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice that this
legislation places the administration of this trail system
under the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with a
competent trail-wide, nonprofit organization, and other
affected land managing agencies. Mr. Lukei, I noticed that you
were the national coordinator for the American Discovery Trail
Society.
How do you feel about this arrangement and do you think
adequate provision is being made to involve the various
voluntary organizations that are concerned with trails and
hiking?
Mr. Lukei. Yes, sir, I certainly do, and in fact the model
that is used worldwide for the management of trails is a model
established by the Appalachian Trail and while we are not
building a trail that is identified as a remotely located
trail, the management of that trail is a model for it and the
reason for that is, as Katherine Stevenson, from the Park
Service pointed out, the agencies need one lead agency or one
nonprofit organization, with which they can communicate and
enter into agreements.
There are actually 63 organizations that have
responsibility for maintaining and managing parts of the
Appalachian Trail, but they all operate under the umbrella
organization of the Appalachian Trail Conference. We foresee a
very similar management situation with respect to the American
Discovery Trail. There would be one nationwide organization,
the American Discovery Trail Society, which would have the
overall responsibility and the umbrella responsibility, working
with the 150 or so organizations that we have already
identified along the route. I think that is not only a very
efficient way, but it is the most effective way and the
Appalachian Trail has shown that is the way to manage these
long distance trails.
Mr. Pickett. Thank you very much. I know the Appalachian
Trail has a great record of being a very successful undertaking
and if that is going to be used as a model, I feel better about
the way this legislation is going to be administered. I want to
thank the witnesses for being here today and for offering their
testimony concerning this legislation.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Appreciate the gentleman's comments.
You have all raised some very interesting questions. This
committee has wrestled with many of the problems concerning how
we do trails. We are talking designated trails here, but there
are trails through public lands and private land, all over the
50 States, basically.
The question, Mr. Lukie, you brought up motorized vehicles.
It is tough to determine. Go to the 1964 Wilderness Act. It
doesn't say motorized, contrary to popular belief. It says
mechanized, so when some of these go through a wilderness area,
frankly, we really don't even have a decision yet what is
mechanized. It is to the eye of the beholder. And to some
people--is a backpack still mechanized? The question came up in
this committee and we argued it for 40 minutes one day.
I guess technically it is. Is an oarlock mechanized when a
river goes through a wilderness area? Technically, I guess it
is. There are very few things you can take, maybe like our
Native Americans, you wouldn't take too much. The question
comes up, when you are going parallel to an existing road, why
not used a mechanized vehicle or a motorized vehicle, even,
these little motor scooter-type things or motorized mountain
bikes, I think they call them Hondas or Yamahas or whatever
they are, and the question comes up by many of the bikers, and
biking is a big thing.
As you know, in the State of Utah, Mohab has turned into
what is a biking capital. There are thousands of mountain
bikes. Everyone has to have a $1,000 mountain bike now that is
made out of things that only went to the moon a few years ago
and that is light and can do the whole bit. We used to by
Schwinn bicycles for $50. Now, all my kids, they all have to
have these mountain bikes that are made out of things that I
don't even understand.
So the problem comes down to, because it is really kind of
a tacky problem, and I appreciate all of you folks addressing
some of these problems. We have to sit here and either turn our
heads or put our heads in the sand or make legislation that has
a lot to do with thousands and millions of folks. So you have
to be kind of careful on these things.
You folks are talking designated trails, that is one thing.
Look at the trails that are sandwiched all over America and
Alaska. It is amazing to me, and any suggestions you may have
concerning that would be more than welcome. The question on
both of these bills, I always admire my two colleagues who have
come up with these. These are bold, innovative, stimulating,
intriguing ideas, but they are always fraught with a few
problems in them, and the ones that are going to leap out on
these bills, especially Mr. Bereuter's bill, will be acquiring
private property.
There is a lot to be said for what the government should be
in and what it shouldn't be in, I don't argue that. The 10th
amendment is clear on that, even though I think from the days
of FDR, the 10th amendment is a dinosaur, but it shouldn't be.
What do we exempt and what don't we exempt? I just want to
thank my two colleagues for very intriguing and interesting
pieces of legislation that they brought up and we will look
forward to see how these progress.
The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, may I conclude by thanking you
for a hearing on the bill, 588. I would remind the subcommittee
what Daniel Burnham said when he laid out the plans for Chicago
after it burned down: Make no small plans. I like Mr. Lukie's
response to the question raised just a few minutes ago about
the cosponsorship with the reference to the, what we call out
in the West, Mr. Pickett, the Appalachian, but I know you said
Appalachian, regional trail, and you ought to be right, I
suppose, since you live closer to it. But I do think the
experience there has demonstrated why, in the dispute between
the Forest Service and Park Service, the sponsor of the
legislation comes down on the sides of the Park Service,
believing there should be a single nonprofit organization,
which would work with a whole variety of other local
organizations which provide the volunteer, the labor and the
skill and the care for the trail. Again, thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. I thank you, gentlemen. Let me just point out
that what is done around here is predicated on who wants to get
something accomplished. I noticed some of our witnesses talked
about NEPA, the Wilderness Act, FLPMA, all of those are very
important Acts. However, maybe it doesn't prohibit the
President of United States from completely violating those
things on September 18, 1996, and putting 1.7 million acres of
monument to the State of Utah, which doesn't fit any of the
criteria, which is my plug to change the antiquities law, which
I will be bringing to the floor in a short time.
Mr. Bereuter. Will the Chairman yield just one more time?
Mr. Hansen. I will yield.
Mr. Bereuter. I notice I am seated in Mr. Pombo's seat and
that is one more reason to exercise caution on the private land
issue.
Mr. Hansen. Let me just add my thanks to my colleagues and
witnesses and all the folks who have made a point to be here
today. We appreciate you coming and it has been very
informative, and I am looking forward to reading the
information that Mr. Lock has brought up. I hope I have the
opportunity to read that, kind of being a history buff on the
gentleman we are talking about.
Thank you very much. This hearing will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2393.074