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