U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71-929 PS 2002

H.R. 37, H.R. 640 and H.R. 1000

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

April 26, 2001

Serial No. 107-21

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 26, 2001 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Bereuter, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nebraska ........................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 37 ............................................................... 5

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

Islands ............................................................................................................ 3

Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 640 ............................................................. 12

Letters submitted for the record .............................................................. 14

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

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 37, H.R. 640 and H.R. 1000 ................... 2

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

Ohio ................................................................................................................ 6

Letters from Dr. Carol Kerlakian and Michael Costantini submitted

for the record .......................................................................................... 9

Sherman, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 20

Press release submitted for the record .................................................... 21

Statement of Witnesses:

Berger, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,

Newbury Park, California ............................................................................ 49

Prepared statement on H.R. 640 ............................................................. 50

Hearty, Patrick, National Trails Committee Chair, National Pony

Express Association, Inc., South Jordan, Utah .......................................... 46

Prepared statement on H.R. 37 ............................................................... 47

Stevenson, Katherine H., Associate Director, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Washington, DC ............................................................................. 25

Prepared statement on H.R. 37 ............................................................... 26

Map A .................................................................................................. 28

Map B .................................................................................................. 29

Prepared statement on H.R. 640 ............................................................. 30

Prepared statement on H.R. 1000 ........................................................... 31

Watson, Jeanne H., Oregon-California Trail Association, Orinda,

California ....................................................................................................... 42

Prepared statement on H.R. 37 ............................................................... 43

Watson, William C., Oregon-California Trail Association, Orinda,

California ....................................................................................................... 37

Prepared statement on H.R. 37 ............................................................... 38

(1)

H.R. 37, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS

SYSTEM ACT TO UPDATE THE FEASIBILITY

AND SUITABILITY STUDIES OF FOUR

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AND PROVIDE

FOR POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO SUCH

TRAILS; H.R. 640, TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1000, TO

ADJUST THE BOUNDARY OF THE WILLIAM

HOWARD TAFT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

IN THE STATE OF OHIO, TO AUTHORIZE AN

EXCHANGE OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH

THE HISTORIC SITE, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES.

Thursday, April 26, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:05

a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel

Hefley [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

COLORADO

Mr. HEFLEY. Now on to other Committee business. This morning

the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

will hear testimony on three bills: H.R. 37, H.R. 640, and

H.R. 1000.

The first bill, H.R. 37, was introduced by Congressman Doug

Bereuter of Nebraska. This bill would amend the National Trails

System Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior to study a number of specific routes and cutoff trails that may be suitable and appropriate for designation as components of the Oregon National

2

Historic Trail, first; and, number two, the Pony Express National

Historic Trail; and, number three, the California National Historic

Trail; and, number four, the Mormon Pioneer National Historic

Trail.

Congressman Bereuter, we notice that a lot of trails went

through Nebraska but no one wanted to stay; they just kept moving on.

[Laughter.]

The second bill, H.R. 640, was introduced by our Committee

colleague, Elton Gallegly, and Congressman Brad Sherman of

California. This bill would adjust the northern boundary of the

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by adding some

3,000 acres of public and private lands to enhance a wildlife corridor between the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains.

The third bill, H.R. 1000, was introduced by Congressman

Portman of Ohio. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior

to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site by acquiring a parcel of adjacent private property of less

than one acre and exchanging it for a parcel of National Park Service property of less than one acre located nearby. It would also

authorize a boundary expansion and for the acquisition of an

additional parcel of property adjacent to the Taft site.

I would like to thank Congressman Bereuter, Congressman

Portman, Congressman Gallegly, and Congressman Sherman, and

all of our witnesses, for being here today to testify on these bills.

And I would like to also mention that the two witnesses scheduled

to testify in support of H.R. 1000 had to withdraw due to scheduling conflicts.

At this point I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman

Bereuter be permitted to sit on the dais following his statement to

participate in the hearing. Is there any objection to that? Hearing

none, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hefley follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

This morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

will hear testimony on three bills - H.R. 37, H.R. 640, and H.R. 1000.

The first bill, H.R. 37, was introduced by Congressman Doug Bereuter of

Nebraska. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to authorize the

Secretary of Interior to study a number of specific routes and cutoff trails that may

be suitable and appropriate for designation as components of the (1) Oregon

National Historic Trail; (2) the Pony Express National Historic Trail; (3) the California National Historic Trail; and (4) the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.

The second bill, H.R. 640, was introduced by our Committee colleague Elton

Gallegly and Congressman Brad Sherman of California. This bill would adjust the

northern boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by

adding some three thousand acres of public and private lands to enhance a wildlife

corridor between the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains.

The third bill, H.R. 1000, was introduced by Congressman Portman of Ohio. This

bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior to adjust the boundary of the William

Howard Taft National Historic Site by acquiring a parcel of adjacent private property of less than one acre and exchanging it for a parcel of National Park Service

property of less than one acre located nearby. It would also authorize a boundary

expansion and for the acquisition of an additional parcel of property adjacent to the

Taft Site.

I would like to thank Congressman Bereuter, Congressman Portman, Congressman Gallegly, Congressman Sherman, and all of our witnesses for being here today

3

to testify on these bills. I would also like to mention that the two witnesses scheduled to testify in support of H.R. 1000 had to withdraw due to scheduling conflicts.

At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Bereuter

be permitted to sit on the dais following his statement to participate in the hearing.

Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

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

Mrs. Christensen?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

welcome our colleagues this morning.

We are going to hear testimony on three unrelated bills. The

first, H.R. 37, would amend the National Trails System Act to update previously completed studies of three trails, and the purpose

of these updates would be to examine additional routes and cutoffs

that were not considered in the initial studies of those trails.

The second measure before us today, H.R. 640, would adjust the

boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area

near Los Angeles to include an additional 3,697 acres, and the purpose of that addition is to facilitate wildlife migration between the

Santa Monica Mountains and several other mountain ranges to the

north.

There has been some concern expressed that the addition of this

acreage will place a number of parcels of private property within

the boundary of the NRA. However, it is our understanding that

relevant property owners are aware of the proposed boundary

change and no opposition to this measure has developed, and hopefully today’s hearing will resolve this issue completely.

Finally, I am not sure if we have any panelists remaining on

H.R. 1000, but it would authorize the National Park Service to exchange a parcel of Federal land at the William Howard Taft

National Historic Site in Cincinnati for a parcel owned by a nearby

charter school. If completed, the exchange will allow visitors to

park closer to the Taft home and facilitate a planned expansion of

the charter school.

In addition, the bill would alter the existing boundary of the Taft

site to include another parcel of private property near the original

Taft estate. The National Park Service has requested that the

property be included within the boundary so that the land could be

acquired if the owner ever decides to sell the land.

We look forward to learning about this site and the other proposed changes from today’s witnesses, and again, welcome to the

Committee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. I think we will start with

Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Portman. Mr. Chairman, if you decide you

want to stay, we will invite you to sit up here as well, to participate in the hearing.

Congressman Bereuter?

4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG BEREUTER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NEBRASKA

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Delegate Christensen,

members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for this opportunity to

testify.

My first two terms in Congress were on this Subcommittee, and

I thought it was an immensely enjoyable experience. I am a cochairman of the Trails Caucus, which has been operating and

growing in strength for the last three Congresses, and I encourage

all of you to participate if you are not already members.

A little good-natured banter, I assume it is good-natured, from

the Chairman on the Colorado-Nebraska issue there, as usual. I

would like to point out, a lot of people did stay in Nebraska. It was

the survival of the fittest. The hardiest people stayed.

[Laughter.]

Actually, people in a 16-county part of Nebraska, including most

of my district, have the longevity record for people that live longest.

That is literally true, except that La Jolla has recently passed us

in longevity. It is a survival of the fittest. But one of my smartaleck colleagues from California suggested that people really don’t

live longer in Nebraska, it just seems longer.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. Please accept my apologies. Obviously, I misspoke.

Mr. BEREUTER. This legislation, as you can see and imagine from

the number, was introduced the first day of this Congress, and I

introduced it in the previous Congress. The bill is necessary, and

I hope noncontroversial. It is a straightforward effort to provide for

a one-time feasibility study updating four national historic trails:

Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express.

The measure simply recognizes the fact there are additional

routes and cutoffs which may deserve inclusion in the National

Trails System. In some cases, many cases, for example in the

Platte River Valley, these trails really took the same course or

were on both sides or one or the other side of the river, and they

have not been designated as such but have only one designation.

This would provide, if the Park Service chooses, an opportunity to

designate several trails using the same route.

During the update period, the National Park Service will work

with the appropriate trails groups and other interested parties to

develop information on any new segments of trail, in an effort to

determine if it meets the criteria, they meet the criteria for addition to the system. No condemnation of private lands or Federal

leases is to be contemplated to add any of these routes to the trail,

and I think the legislation makes that clear.

Although the National Park Service is supportive of efforts to examine these additional routes, it has determined that legislation is

needed to provide that authorization. That is the purpose of

H.R. 37, and you will be hearing from the Park Service shortly.

All four trails covered in this legislation were instrumental, of

course, in opening the American West, but each has its unique

story to tell. The California Trail enabled 70,000 people to follow

their dreams to the Golden State between 1849 and 1850. The

5

Oregon Trail made it possible for fur traders, settlers, and others

to reach the Pacific Northwest.

Although it lasted only 18 months, the Pony Express achieved a

cherished role in American lore. Its daring riders, which included

Buffalo Bill Cody and Wild Bill Hickok, were able to deliver mail

from St. Joseph, Missouri to Sacramento, California in 10 days.

The Mormon Pioneer Trail, of course, marks the route used for

church members as they headed West in search of religious freedom.

These trails all follow, at least in part, the Platte River in

Nebraska, and we are pleased to have as one of our nicknames the

‘‘Historic Trails State.’’

I was pleased to note that during the 102nd Congress, legislation

which I introduced to designate the California National Trail and

the Pony Express Trail as components of the National Trails System, which moved of course through this Subcommittee, was enacted. The bill being discussed today will build on that effort and

enable even greater recognition of these contributions made by

these bold and courageous pioneers.

Those who used the trails endured hardships that are difficult to

imagine. Of course they survived hazards such as wild animals,

blizzards, floods, as well as scarcity and disease. To those who

bravely made it to their destinations and those who died along the

way, I think we owe a huge debt of gratitude. I believe that

H.R. 37 will help to give proper recognition to the many historic

and heroic individuals who played such an important part in the

settling of the American West.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many dedicated volunteers who have been so supportive

of the National Trails System in general, but also to these particular trails. I would like to thank Bill and Jeanne Watson with

the Oregon-California Trail Association; Pat Hearty with the Pony

Express Trail Association; Ron Anderson with the Mormon Trail

Association; and Loren Horton with the Iowa Mormon Trail Association. The efforts to preserve and provide recognition for these

trails are truly a grassroots labor of love involving thousands of individuals, and the people I have named epitomize those individuals.

So again, thank you for holding the hearing and giving me an opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 37. I would appreciate the

Subcommittee’s favorable consideration of the bill. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Nebraska, on H.R. 37

Chairman Hefley, Delegate Christensen and Members of the Subcommittee: I

would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding H.R. 37, a bill I introduced on January 3, 2001. During the past 106th Congress, I introduced the same legislation.

This bill is necessary and should be non-controversial. It is a straight-forward effort to provide for a one-time feasibility study update for four national historic

trails—Oregon, California, Mormon and Pony Express.

The measure simply recognizes the fact that there are additional routes and cutoffs which may deserve inclusion in the National Trails System. During the update

period, the National Park Service will work with the appropriate trails groups and

6

other interested parties to develop information on any new segment of trail in an

effort to determine if it meets the criteria for addition to the system. No condemnation of private lands or Federal leases is to be contemplated to add any of these

routes to the trails.

Although the National Park Service is supportive of efforts to examine these additional routes, it has determined that legislation is needed to provide the authorization. That is the purpose of H.R. 37.

All four trails covered in this legislation were instrumental in opening the American West, but each has its own unique story to tell. The California Trail enabled

70,000 people to follow their dream to the Golden State in 1849 and 1850. The

Oregon Trail made it possible for fur traders, settlers and others to reach the Pacific

Northwest.

Although it lasted only about 18 months, the Pony Express achieved a cherished

role in American lore. Its daring riders, which included Buffalo Bill Cody and Wild

Bill Hickok, were able to deliver mail from St. Joseph, Missouri to Sacramento, California in 10 days. The Mormon Pioneer Trail allowed the church members an opportunity to head west in search of religious freedom.

These trails all follow at least part of the Platte River and Nebraska is proud to

have as one of its nicknames the ‘‘Historic Trails State.’’ Many used the route

through Nebraska to reach their goal further west. Those with more foresight decided to settle in Nebraska.

I am pleased to note that during the 102nd Congress I introduced the legislation

which was enacted to designate the California National Historic Trail and the Pony

Express National Historic Trail as components of the National Trails System. The

bill being discussed today will build on that effort and enable even greater recognition of the contributions made by these bold and courageous pioneers. Those who

used the trails endured hardships that are difficult to imagine. They survived hazards such as wild animals, blizzards and floods as well as scarcity and disease.

To those who bravely made it to their destination and those who died along the

way we owe a huge debt of gratitude. I believe that H.R. 37 will help to give proper

recognition to the many heroic individuals who played such an important role in settling the American West.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many

dedicated volunteers who have been so supportive of these national trails. In particular, I would like to thank Bill and Jeanne Watson, with the Oregon–California

Trail Association, Pat Hearty with the Pony Express Trail Association, Ron Anderson with the Mormon Trail Association, and Loren Horton with the Iowa Mormon

Trail Association. The efforts to preserve and provide recognition for these trails is

truly a grassroots labor of love involving thousands of individuals.

Again, thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify

in support of H.R. 37. I would appreciate the Subcommittee’s favorable consideration of this legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. You have really been one

of Congress’ champions of the Trails System, and you are to be

commended for that.

Mr. Portman?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB PORTMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just

want to say that it may seem like people live longer in Nebraska.

However, in Cincinnati, about the time of William Howard Taft’s

life, Mark Twain observed that he had hoped to be in Cincinnati

when the world ended because everything happens 10 years later

there.

[Laughter.]

So your longevity figures may not be accurate because you can

add 10 years to Cincinnati’s.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Christensen,

other members of the Subcommittee, for being here this morning

to hear us talk about these relatively small issues on the national

7

front that are very important to us locally. Mine is H.R. 1000, well

described by both the Chairman and Ranking Member, and provides for a land transfer and boundary adjustment by the William

Howard Taft National Historical Site in Cincinnati.

William Howard Taft, as you know, is the only person who

served as both President of the United States and as Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court. The Taft family, of course, is very well

known here in Washington. Robert Taft is still our Governor in

Ohio, and we have had two distinguished Senators as part of the

family.

William Howard Taft, the Senior, was Solicitor General, Governor of the Philippines and Secretary of War before he became

President. He was elected President, incidentally, by an electoral

vote of 2 to 1, and the legacy of his administration is still very

much a part of our American life.

In 1921 he realized his true lifelong dream when President Warren Harding named him 10th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

of the United States. He was extremely proud. In fact, later he was

quoted as saying, ‘‘I’m not sure I remember having been President.’’

In any case, his boyhood home, you have talked about Ronald

Reagan’s boyhood home, his boyhood home is in Cincinnati, and he

lived there until he was married. It is located in a very historic but

urban community in Cincinnati. There is not much land left in that

area, and it is very important that this land transfer take place to

provide for adequate use of the property.

It is now administered by the National Park Service, which has

an excellent relationship, Mr. Chairman, with our community. In

fact, the volunteerism of the community is noticeable there. They

hold many events. There is a very active group that helps out and

supports financially many of the activities that take place around

the boyhood home.

As again it has been well described, this provides for a land

transfer between the Park Service and a charter school called the

SABIS International School, Cincinnati. It is very beneficial for the

Taft home because it allows visitors to park next to the site rather

than parking on a very busy street or in a parking lot that is quite

a ways away from the Taft center, and we really believe this is one

reason we haven’t had higher visitation, which I know all of us in

the Congress and on this Subcommittee would like to see at our

national park sites.

The land the Park Service would receive in the transfer is not

only much more convenient, helps attract a lot more visitors, but

it also helps the Park Service to revert a portion of this area to

green space. This green space would be consistent with the way the

land looked back when William Howard Taft was growing up there,

so it makes it more authentic. It is also very beneficial to the

school. It turns out this charter school would like to expand, and

the two plots of land they own are located directly across the street

from each other. So it is a win-win situation.

I have been working very closely with members of the school, and

I am pleased to say they are fully supportive of this land transfer.

This is not a Federal land grab. This is something that they support. And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would very much

8

like to submit to the record a statement from the leadership of the

SABIS School for the record this morning.

Mr. PORTMAN. Finally, the bill also expands the park’s

boundaries, as was noted, to include a building that has about 40

apartments in it. I understand the owners of this building also are

very supportive of being included within the boundary. They have

an excellent relationship with the Park Service. In fact, the Park

Service currently rents office space in that building, and its parking lot is already part of the historical site, so the parking lot for

the apartment building is already part of the boundary.

The owner and managing partner of the apartment building

could not be here, as you said, this morning. However, he also has

a strong statement of support I would like to submit for the record,

with your permission.

[The letters submitted for the record by Mr. Portman follow:]

9

10

11

Mr. PORTMAN. The cost to the Federal Government, as I understand it, would be zero or minimal, because these two pieces of

land have been appraised and are of equal value, so it is my understanding there is no need for an appropriation for the exchange

that this legislation would permit. As a result, the legislation does

not authorize any new spending.

I understand the Park Service may be interested in amending

this bill, perhaps this morning. In the hearing, this will come up.

They would like to allow use of some appropriated funds to purchase, should it be made available, this apartment building. And

I am certainly willing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and other

members of the Subcommittee, Mrs. Christensen and others, as

well as with the Park Service, to come to the appropriate agreement on this issue.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank your

staff. Tod Hull has done a great job, as has Rob Howarth of your

staff, in bringing this to this point. Again, I know that you are

dealing with much bigger issues in the Subcommittee. This may

seem relatively minor, but it is very important to our area and to

the full use of this very important historic landmark in the Cincinnati community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Portman.

Mr. Gallegly?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, for holding this hearing today.

Mr. Chairman, the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area,

which stretches from West Hollywood in California’s Los Angeles

County to Point Mugu in my district in Ventura County, was established in 1978 and run by the National Park Service. It is home

to 26 distinct natural communities, from freshwater aquatic habitats to oak woodlands. It is a critical haven for more than 450 animal species, including the Golden Eagle. It is considered unique

among the National Park Service’s holdings, and is easily accessible to 12 million people in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.

My bill, H.R. 640, which I introduced with my colleague and

friend from the San Fernando Valley, Congressman Brad Sherman,

would adjust the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area to enhance and protect the principal wildlife corridor between the Simi Hills to the north and the Santa Monica Mountains.

It adds nearly 3,700 acres of public and private lands to the

recreation area at no cost to the taxpayer. Of that, 2,797 acres donated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a State agency,

will be transferred to the Parks Service. Another 570 acres is publicly and privately owned open space. The rest, about 330 acres, is

comprised of developed residential areas in the Cities of Calabasas

and Agoura Hills.

12

I want to stress that the recreation area designated would have

no impact on the ability for either the cities or private property

owners to develop their lands according to the applicable State

laws and local ordnances. It does, however, give property owners

greater access to Park Service assistance to environmentally enhance their properties if they so choose. That is why homeowner

associations representing the communities that would be included

in the designation and the Cities of Agoura Hills and Calabasas

support this bill.

I have attached with my testimony copies of letters from the

cities and homeowner associations impacted by this legislation.

Also attached is a letter from the State agency that is transferring

its land to the Park Service.

Protecting the wildlife corridor will promote greater ecosystem

health and diversity to the Santa Monica Mountains, particularly

for larger mammals like bobcats, badgers and mountain lions. It is

hard to think that that is a part of the City of Los Angeles, isn’t

it?

The 3,700 acres represent the last remaining open space parcels

connecting the Santa Monica Mountains and the Simi Hills across

the 101 Freeway. It is an important addition to the recreation area,

and enjoys widespread support from all the communities. I ask my

colleagues to support H.R. 640, Mr. Chairman, and with that I

would yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members for holding this hearing

today.

Mr. Chairman, the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, which stretches

from West Hollywood in California’s Los Angeles County to Point Mugu in my district of Ventura County, was established in 1978 and is run by the National Park

Service. It is home to 26 distinct natural communities, from freshwater aquatic

habitats to oak woodlands. It is a critical haven for more than 450 animal species,

including the golden eagle. It is considered unique among the National Park Service’s holdings, and is easily accessible to 12 million people in Ventura and

Los Angeles counties.

My bill, H.R. 640, which I introduced with my colleague Congressman Brad Sherman, would adjust the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area

to enhance and protect the principal wildlife corridor between the Simi Hills to the

north and the Santa Monica Mountains. It adds nearly 3,700 acres of public and

private lands to the Recreation Area at no cost to the taxpayer.

Of that, 2,797 acres donated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state

agency, will be transferred to the Park Service. Another 570 acres is publicly and

privately owned open space. The rest, about 330 acres, is comprised of developed

residential areas in the Cities of Calabasas and Agoura Hills. I want to stress that

the Recreation Area designation would have no impact on the ability for either the

cities or private property owners to develop their lands according to applicable state

laws and local ordinances. It does, however, give property owners greater access to

Park Service assistance to environmentally enhance their properties, if they so

choose.

That is why homeowners associations representing the communities that would

be included in the designation and the Cities of Agoura Hills and Calabasas support

my bill. I have attached with my testimony copies of letters from the cities and

homeowners associations impacted by this legislation. Also attached is a letter from

the state agency that is transferring its land to the Park Service.

Protecting the wildlife corridor will promote greater ecosystem health and diversity in the Santa Monica Mountains, particularly for larger mammals like bobcats,

badgers and mountain lions. The 3,700 acres represent the last remaining open

13

space parcels connecting the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills across the 101

Freeway.

It is an important addition to the Recreation Area and enjoys widespread support

from the communities. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 640 and yield back the

balance of my time.

[Letters submitted for the record by Mr. Gallegly follow:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Sherman?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Christensen. My friend and colleague Elton Gallegly I think has set

forth the case quite well. I will try to be as brief as possible.

The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, as he

points out, is accessible to well over 10 million people. It draws

over 33 million visitors each year to its beaches and its mountains.

It contains so many species that you are just not going to see in

the more urbanized parts of Los Angeles County. And this acquisition would provide a critical wildlife corridor, so that we can have

sustainable populations of various mammals, and so that our furry

friends will no longer have to date their cousins.

The bill would add some 3,700 acres to the park. Most of those

acres, as Elton pointed out, are already in government ownership.

Many of the other acres are already dedicated open space. The 900

acres that is privately owned will not be adversely affected, the

rights of the property owners will not be adversely affected in any

way. Land use planning will continue to be under the jurisdiction

of the City of Calabasas, the City of Agoura Hills, or for the unincorporated area, Los Angeles County.

We have letters of support not only as Elton mentioned, but also

from the relevant State legislators, the county supervisor, and both

of the two cities involved. What is more, and this is highly unusual,

not a single person has come to me in opposition to this, and that

is extraordinary because I represent some very opinionated people

in the 24th Congressional District.

In fact, every organization that could be called upon to support

this bill, supports it. Yes, there are those private property owners,

but they are represented by the Saratoga Hills Homeowners Association, the Saratoga Range Homeowners Association, the Liberty

Canyon Homeowners Association, all of which support this bill, in

large part because the bill will enhance the park, which is accessible to them, and will have no effect on the land use planning decisions for the use of their private property.

I should also point out that with me here is Art Eck, the superintendent of the park, who informs me that this bill will not require any additional appropriations either for land acquisition, because the bill makes it clear that the only way the Federal Government will acquire land is through donation, nor for operations, because his current budget will allow him to operate these additional

acres.

I should point out that also with me is Michael Berger, who is

Chair of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy which currently

owns, as an agency of the State government, much of the land that

will be donated to the Federal Government if this bill is adopted.

Also here from Saratoga Hills is Norman Buring, who has taken

upon himself to get hundreds of signatures on a petition in support

of this bill. The very possibility that this bill might be contentious

has immediately galvanized support in my district there, and has

galvanized no opposition whatsoever.

21

[A press release submitted for the record by Mr. Sherman follows:]

22

23

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of

this panel of witnesses?

Mr. Bereuter, do you have any opposition in the State of

Nebraska to expanding the Trails System, if that would be what

the study would decide was appropriate? Has there been any organized opposition against that?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, no, none that we are aware of at

all. In fact, we don’t think it is a major expansion. It is the redesignation of certain areas as multiple, in multiple names mostly, but

there might be a few cutoffs that would be added by the Service.

But we have heard no opposition to it from Nebraska or elsewhere

at this point.

Mr. HEFLEY. Are the trails that are designated at the present

time, are they actually trails now that can be used by people to

hike or horseback or whatever on, ride bikes?

Mr. BEREUTER. In most parts of the country they are not, Mr.

Chairman. They use public right-of-ways for the most part, and are

simply designations across what is farmland or rangelands, but

mostly it is on public right-of-ways that you find the designation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Do you find in Nebraska as we do in Colorado—I

mean, we are probably drier than you are, but our eastern plains

are very dry, and we still have the tracks of the Oregon Trail and

the Santa Fe Trail. Do you find that in Nebraska as well?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, as a matter of fact, in a number of cases in

the Platte Valley, and they have been preserved by, for example,

the State Game and Parks Commission or by local entities. They

are particularly pronounced in a few areas where the sod has never

been changed, particularly in the rangeland of western Nebraska.

For example, near Kimball you will find, right adjacent to I-80,

the ruts, and they have now placed giant prairie schooner wheels

in those ruts to give people an idea that something is significant

there. So you can walk 100 yards from the rest stop and actually

see the trail there near Kimball.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Portman, you seem to have a win-win situation

for everybody. I think as the bill is written, there is—it is designated that the Park Service can acquire that additional apartment building, the additional space to expand it, by donation, and

you indicated that they might be wanting to amend that. Are you

amenable to an amendment that would allow them to use appropriated funds to buy that?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it probably makes sense.

As I understand it, it would be a right of first refusal. It is to avoid

the possibility that that property could be sold to another owner if

the Park Service thought it was appropriate for them to have it.

It is right next to the visitor center, and if you look at it, it is

almost—there is a whole front part of a block that is the home and

then some green space, the visitor center, hopefully we will have

that parking lot closer now, and then there is the apartment building sitting right next to it. So it probably makes sense to have that

option.

I don’t frankly understand what the other concerns of the Subcommittee might be in terms of putting in an authorization bill

such language. I assume that would be an appropriations issue.

But I am supportive of the concept of letting the Park Service have

24

sort of a right of first refusal to that property, and apparently the

owners are fine with it. They think that is a good idea, too. They

have already got their parking lot as part of the Park Service

boundary.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Mr. Sherman and Mr. Gallegly, I am

having a little trouble understanding the need for your bill. Most

of the property we are talking about is already public open space

land. It is owned by somebody. So that corridor, if there is a migration corridor for wildlife, it is there.

The other part of it, the private land, is part of cities. It is subdivisions, and you are telling me that this will not make any difference to those private subdivisions or city land use planning. So

I guess either you or your witnesses need to explain to me the need

for the bill in light of what I have just said.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond, then Art Eck, the

superintendent of the park, can probably respond better than I can,

and Elton Gallegly may be able to respond better than either one

of us.

This is really simply who will manage these lands which are part

of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. They are

currently, for the most part, owned by and managed by the Santa

Monica Mountains Conservancy, which is a special organization of

State government really designed to acquire lands quickly, and

then transfer them in many cases to the Santa Monica Mountains

National Recreational Area, where the National Park Service can

do a better job of managing, particularly with its expertise in dealing with the endangered and threatened species in the area.

So the real effect of this bill is to transfer ownership, control,

management, to the agency that has the greatest expertise in being

able to deal with this property, transferring it from Mr. Berger’s

agency to Art Eck’s stewardship.

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is right.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is relatively simple. I don’t know if my colleague has a comment, and perhaps Art.

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield, and trying just to

follow up on what Brad has said, and I really think that the Park

Service could probably explain it in greater detail, but it would be

too administratively complex to manage and understand. And with

the Chairman’s concurrence, maybe we could hear from the Park

Service on that, because of the complexity of tying it all together

and managing it.

Mr. HEFLEY. We are going to hear from the Park Service in a

panel here, so we will let them testify.

All right. I have no further questions. Does the Committee have

any questions?

We thank this panel, and I again would welcome you, if you have

time to stay, to participate in the rest of the hearing. In any case,

we are delighted to have you here.

The second panel will be composed of Ms. Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnerships for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., who will

speak on each of the bills.

25

Ms. Stevenson, if you will, we ordinarily have the witnesses, put

them on a 5-minute clock, but you have three bills to talk about,

so if you need a little more time than that, don’t worry about it.

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND

PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ART ECK, SUPERINTENDENT, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATURAL

RESOURCE AREA; AND KEVIN McMURRAY, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT NATIONAL HISTORIC

SITE

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can do it

within the 5 minutes. That will allow you to ask whatever questions you might have.

For H.R. 37, the trail amendment bill, the department supports

this bill in concept, mindful of course of the budgetary constraints

that the department and the Federal Government are under. This

bill would update the feasibility and suitability studies of the

Oregon, California, Pony Express, and Mormon Trails, and would

study the routes and cutoffs not in the original designation.

As you well know, being from Colorado, it is not that it is a single highway type trail. People used cutoffs and routes all around

the main arteries, and those were not included in the original bill

in some cases, and we want to make sure that any eligible portions

are included within the trail system. Some of those, of course, are

on top of other portions of other trails, but we want to make sure

that they are designated as appropriate to the trails they are

named.

We commit to working closely with other Federal agencies, with

the States, with local and tribal governments and with landowners

during the studies and after designation, should you authorize the

bill.

For H.R. 1000, the adjustment of the William Howard Taft

National Historic Site, the department supports this bill with

amendments. This, as has been said previously, would redraw the

boundary to include two parcels contiguous to the site to allow access and interpretation. The first is a parking lot, which would be

exchanged with a school for a parking lot closer to the home, and

the second is the apartment building immediately adjacent to the

home, which would allow us to acquire in the future, should the

owner decide to sell.

The bill does preclude, as has been discussed earlier, appropriated funds being allowed for purchase. This is a commercial

property. We see no reason that the owner should be precluded

from selling the property to us and us acquiring it with appropriated funds—we don’t want to put any strictures on him—and

allow him to make a sale that is profitable to him.

Finally, H.R. 640, which is the Santa Monica Mountains bill, the

department again supports this bill. This would allow the adjustment of the authorized boundary to encompass a very important

wildlife corridor and to protect key watersheds. If the private lands

were to be left out, this would leave basically a hole in the donut

of the boundary, and particularly the wildlife portions are very,

26

very significant to protect the variety of wildlife, as several people

have mentioned here.

The acquisition would be by donation only, thus bringing the

Federal Government very large contributions of land. There are

3,700 acres proposed to expansion. As has been said earlier, 2,800

of those are owned by the State agency mentioned earlier here.

That would only leave 900 acres that are not owned by the Conservancy, and one-third are in neighborhoods, in two neighborhoods,

and I think you have already heard about the letters of support.

It is much easier to explain the boundaries to people and to do

educational programs for them and have public awareness if we

have a consistent, constant boundary without holes in it. We would

continue to have no land requirements on non-Federal land, as we

have for the many years that Santa Monica Mountains Recreation

Area has been in existence.

That concludes my remarks. I have with me the two superintendents, Art Eck, Superintendent of Santa Monica Mountains, and

Kevin McMurray, who is Acting Superintendent of the William

Howard Taft National Historic Site. If you have any questions, I

would be happy to answer them, or with your permission invite

them up to address any questions you might have. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statements of Ms. Stevenson on H.R. 37,

H.R. 640, and H.R. 1000 follow:]

Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resources

Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S. Department

of the Interior, on H.R. 37

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 37. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act

to update the feasibility and suitability studies of the Oregon, California, Pony Express and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails (NHT).

H.R. 37 would update the feasibility and suitability studies through the examination of additional routes and cutoffs not included in the initial studies of all four

trails. The Secretary of the Interior would determine if some or all of these routes

and cutoffs are eligible as additions to the four NHTs at the completion of these

studies. Further, it would authorize the Secretary to make designations of any of

these additional routes and cutoffs that she found eligible.

The Department supports this legislation in concept, but will not consider requesting funding for updating the studies in this or the next fiscal year. Furthermore,

in order to better plan for the future of our National Parks, we believe that any

such studies should carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance

costs that would result from each alternative considered. We caution that our support of this legislation does not mean that the Secretary will make the recommended designations of additional routes upon completion of the studies. When

the studies are completed, the Department will evaluate its progress on the President’s Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog and determine

whether new designations are appropriate at that time.

The feasibility study for the Oregon NHT was completed in 1977, the study for

the Mormon Pioneer NHT in 1978, and the one for the California and Pony Express

NHTs in 1987. Since those studies have been completed, dozens of additional routes

and cutoffs have been identified which may qualify as integral parts of these trails.

The National Trails System Act makes no provision by which such additional routes

and cutoffs may be evaluated and added to national historic trails.

The Oregon NHT, authorized in 1978, commemorates the ‘‘primary route’’ used by

emigrants beginning in 1841 between Independence, Missouri and Oregon City,

Oregon. Traveled by thousands, the trail contained many routes and cutoffs used

through the years. These secondary routes had substantial emigrant traffic over several decades that demonstrate historical significance and are thus worthy of being

examined in an updated study at the appropriate time.

27

The authorization of the Mormon NHT in 1978 commemorates the journey of the

pioneer party in 1846–1847 from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake City, Utah. As with

the Oregon NHT, emigrant traffic occurred on many additional routes during the

Mormon migration westward. Similarly with the other trails, these routes are more

often than not coincident or shared with one another. As discussion ensued about

the routes and cutoffs to be studied for possible addition, advocates of the Mormon

Pioneer and Pony Express NHTs called attention to even more routes that needed

to be reviewed. Preliminary data indicate traffic along those routes during the historic period and thus there are significant additional routes to be studied for these

two trails.

Authorized in 1992, the California NHT commemorates the gold rush to the Sierra Nevada. Dozens of routes and cutoffs were traveled by thousands of pioneers,

but no single route dominated.

The Pony Express NHT was included in the same authorizing legislation as the

California NHT. It commemorates the efforts of this nation struggling to establish

a system of communication across the Trans–Missouri west. The trail primarily follows routes beginning at St. Joseph, Missouri and ending in San Francisco, California. The firm of Russell, Majors, and Waddell, a western Missouri freighting company, set up and operated the Pony Express for one and a half years before it fell

on hard times and ceased to exist. A short section of the trail, from the Missouri

River into Kansas, also appears worthy of study and is included in H.R. 37.

All four trails overlap one another in many locations and several of the routes and

cutoffs proposed for study in H.R. 37 are already part of designated trails. These

shared routes are prominent where the trails depart from various points along the

Missouri River, particularly in the Kansas City, St. Joseph, Nebraska City, Council

Bluffs and Omaha areas. Several other shared locations include routes in western

Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and California. Study and

multiple designation at the appropriate time of several routes and cutoffs would assure greater historical accuracy along the trails.

The National Trail System Act requires that studies of lands proposed for trails

be made in consultation with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nonprofit

trail organizations, the entities that form the core of any partnership for national

historic trails. Between 1994 and 1999, the National Park Service—in collaboration

with the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, trail advocacy groups

and others—completed the Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (1999) for the four trails. This was the initial plan for the

recently established California and Pony Express NHTs as well as a revision of the

plans for the earlier established Oregon and Mormon Pioneer NHTs. During the

planning effort, trail advocacy groups pointed out that the feasibility studies for all

four studies had failed to recognize many significant alternate routes and cutoffs.

Consideration was given to including some of these routes in the comprehensive

management plan, but they could not be, since they were not within the scope of

the various trail feasibility studies, and, hence, not official parts of the trails.

H.R. 37 would allow for the consideration of these additional alternates and cutoffs

by authorizing an update of the original studies done for these four trails to see

which ones are eligible for designation as NHT segments. During the study process

authorized by H.R. 37, the Department of the Interior would work closely with federal agencies, state, local and tribal governments, local landowners and other interested parties, as well as trail advocacy groups to assure their interests are addressed.

Historic trails cross public and private lands and the intent of the National Trails

System Act is one of respecting private property rights. In so doing, the development

of strong partnerships is critical to administering and managing the historic trails

and achieving preservation of trail resources and interpretation of the trail to the

public. The four national trails included in this legislation demonstrate the results

of this type of effort.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to respond to any questions that

you or members of the subcommittee may have.

[Map A and Map B follow:]

28

29

30

Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural

Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, on H.R. 640

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the

Interior’s views on H.R. 640, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

The Department supports H.R. 640. This legislation will adjust the authorized

boundary of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to encompass an

important wildlife corridor and provide for the protection of a key watershed. The

legislation requires that acquisition of lands within the expansion area be accomplished only through donation, a provision that reflects the high level of cooperation

and strong commitment of local communities and governments toward the park.

Furthermore, in light of the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of

deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System before incurring additional financial burdens, it is important to note that this legislation authorizes the

lands within the boundary adjustment area to be acquired by donation only. Therefore, no public funds will be required for land acquisition. In addition, life cycle

operational and maintenance costs are expected to be minimal. The park anticipates

providing only minimal facilities such as trails, emphasizing habitat preservation for

wildlife movement. Since no development is contemplated within the boundary adjustment area, no line item construction or related operational funding will be required.

Within the 3,697-acre expansion zone, three parcels of land totaling about 2,800

acres are owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, an agency of the

California Resources Department that was established in 1981 to complement and

assist with the establishment of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area. The three parcels are the 2,300-acre Las Virgenes Canyon Dedication, the

390-acre Liberty Canyon tract, and the 107-acre Abrams property. These lands are

held by the Conservancy on behalf of local governments, principally the governments of Ventura County and Los Angeles County, and are slated to be donated to

the National Park Service once they have been included within the authorized

boundary of the recreation area. H.R. 640 adjusts the boundary in order to accomplish this purpose.

Acquisition of these lands is important in order to protect critical habitat required

for the free movement and migration of wildlife between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Simi Hills, thereby preventing local extinction of species in the park.

Together with existing National Park Service lands, the three parcels form the only

remaining wildlife corridor in the region to connect with national forest lands to the

north.

In addition, this legislation enables the protection of a significant portion of Upper

Las Virgenes Creek, which is part of the Malibu Creek Watershed, the largest freshwater system within the recreation area. The quality and condition of this watershed is of critical concern because it drains into Santa Monica Bay. The beaches of

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, surrounding the Bay and running west from the Santa Monica Pier for 45 miles along the Malibu coastline, are

principally managed by the Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors and

the California State Parks. In all, this complex of beaches supports in excess of 30

million recreation visits annually, which suggests that it is one of the most valuable

recreation assets in California.

Within the existing boundary of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area, some 70 governmental jurisdictions operate and work together. Unlike many

park areas where lands within the authorized boundary are almost entirely in federal ownership, there exists an extremely complex mosaic of publicly and privately

owned lands within the recreation area’s boundary. The entire city of Malibu, as

well as portions of the Cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Los Angeles, Thousand

Oaks, and Westlake Village are within the current park boundaries. The National

Park Service works cooperatively with other governments and private landowners,

and shares its resource management knowledge with the local communities. The

National Park Service, however, does not regulate land use on private or non-federal

parklands within the park.

In addition to the 2,800 acres that are owned by the Conservancy, approximately

900 acres of private and non-federal public lands are located within the expansion

zone, including two neighborhoods that are situated within the Cities of Agoura

Hills and Calabasas. The two neighborhoods comprise roughly 330 acres. The two

cities, as well as the homeowner associations representing the neighborhoods concerned, are longtime supporters of the park and this legislation. We understand that

letters in support the boundary enlargement have been provided to the subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Jan 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71929.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
31

committee from each of these governments and associations. Under the classification

process used by the park, the neighborhoods are designated as ‘‘developed areas,’’ where the National Park Service will not acquire lands.

There are also lands within the expansion zone under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County that are largely undeveloped, or held by the county to support operations such as the Calabasas landfill. The legislation would permit the National

Park Service to accept these lands, only by donation, if it were determined that they

could further park purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to support this proposal. In all, the lands reserved

through the efforts of local communities and governments for transfer to the

National Park Service may be worth as much as $60 million under current market

conditions. The legislation before you today is a testament to the cooperation and

commitment of the citizens, local governments, and the park agencies in the Santa

Monica Mountains.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you

or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural

Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1000

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee

to present the position of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1000, a bill to adjust the boundary and authorize an exchange of certain lands at William Howard

Taft National Historic Site located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Department of the Interior supports this bill with the amendments outlined in this testimony.

The William Howard Taft National Historic Site, situated in a designated Historic

District of the Mount Auburn section of Cincinnati, Ohio, is the only memorial to

William Howard Taft, the nation’s 27th President and 10th Chief Justice of the

United States. William Howard Taft lived at the property that became the historic

site from his birth in 1857 until his marriage to Helen ‘‘Nellie’’ Herron, in 1886. The

Taft family sold the property in 1889.

This unit of the National Park System was established by Public Law 91–132 on

December 2, 1969. The site was established specifically to ‘‘preserve in public ownership historically significant properties associated with the life of William Howard

Taft.’’ Prior to the establishment of the historic site the William Howard Taft Memorial Association began efforts to acquire and restore the Taft family home. In 1963

the association leased part of the house and began to restore it. In 1968 the association bought the property. In 1969 the home and its 1/2 acre of land was transferred

to the United States Government. In 1972 an additional 1/3 acre of adjacent land

was cleared of an existing apartment building and also donated to the Government

by the William Howard Taft Memorial Association.

H.R. 1000 would redraw the boundary of the Taft historic site to include two parcels of land that are presently contiguous to the site. The inclusion of these tracts

within the site would benefit park visitors by giving them easier access to the site,

and by enabling the Park Service to better tell the story associated with the site.

In addition, H.R. 1000 would benefit the local community of Mount Auburn, as it

would authorize the National Park Service to transfer a tract of land to a leading

private educator of Cincinnati, the SABIS International School of Cincinnati

(SABIS). This tract would enable SABIS, which operates a school across the street

from the site, to better carry out its educational mission.

The Taft Historic Site is bordered by Southern Avenue on the north, Auburn Avenue on the west, Young Street on the east, and Bodman Avenue on the south. The

primary attractions for visitors are the Taft Home, and the Taft Education Center,

which are both accessed from Auburn Avenue. However, to reach the Home or the

Education Center, visitors must park along either heavily trafficked Auburn Avenue, or at the NPS parking lot, which is at the other end of the block, at the corner

of Young Street and Southern Avenue. This lot is situated between two tracts owned

by SABIS, and across the street from other land owned by SABIS. Thus, the lot is

far more convenient for faculty, and parents of students attending the SABIS school,

than it is for Taft site visitors.

H.R. 1000 would enable the National Park Service to transfer this land to SABIS,

which would enhance SABIS’s ability to serve the community. In exchange, SABIS

would transfer to the National Park Service a tract of land that it owns along

Southern Avenue. The National Park Service would then develop part of this land

into a parking lot, which would enable visitors to park one-half block closer to the

Taft Home and Education Center than the present lot allows. The National Park

32

Service would allow another part of this land to revert to the same character it possessed during the Taft years of 1857 to 1899—green space. The National Park Service would also develop a handicapped accessible walking trail connecting to the site

on part of this land to give visitors a better feel for how this land influenced the

life of William Howard Taft. The bill also provides that if a real estate appraisal

shows the NPS tract to be of a different value than the SABIS tract, additional

funds or land may be used to equalize the transaction.

H.R. 1000 would also bring within the park’s boundary another tract, approximately three-fourths of an acre that is located at the intersection of Southern and

Auburn Avenues. This property presently contains a residential building with 40

apartments. For the past 18 years the National Park Service has rented administrative office space in this building. The parking lot for this building, which includes

a Park Service easement, was brought within the boundary of the park by a 1981

boundary modification. Over the last 15 years, this tract has come up for sale on

two occasions. Both times the NPS wanted to acquire the property, but was unable

to submit an offer because the property was not within the park boundary. This

property has been identified in the master plan for the park as land that would further the mission of the park. While the National Park Service does not have a definitive plan for the use of this property at present, the tract could be used for a variety of purposes that would further the park mission. In determining the best use

for this tract we would examine several alternatives, including using it to improve

access to the site because of its location as a corner lot, and its potential for parking

spaces; using it to aid us in telling the William Howard Taft story, as at least part

of it could be restored to a condition similar to that which existed during the Taft

years; and using at least part of it for administrative space, which would help the

park carry out its business. H.R. 1000 would give the National Park Service the authority to buy this property when it goes on the market in the future. Any potential

modifications to the property would be accomplished only after consultation and collaboration with all identified stakeholders.

While the two tracts of land that would be brought into the historic site by

H.R. 1000 were not part of the original Taft estate, their acquisition would be consistent with the historic site’s enabling legislation, which provides that the purpose

of the site is to ‘‘preserve in public ownership historically significant properties associated with the life of William Howard Taft.’’ These tracts are portions of land that

was contiguous to the Taft property during the time William Howard Taft resided

at the site, and are therefore historically significant properties associated with the

life of William Howard Taft. In addition, these properties take on even greater significance in light of the fact that a large piece of the original Taft estate that fronts

Bodman Avenue will in all likelihood never be available to the Park Service. Hamilton County constructed several buildings on this site in 1995, which it uses for a

juvenile detention center. Thus, the acquisition of the tracts involved in H.R. 1000

may represent the last chance the Park Service has to deal with encroaching urban

development that impedes its ability to carry out its mission at the historic site.

Their acquisition is also consistent with the park’s 1981 Master Plan, which provides for the preservation of ‘‘those elements from the historic period’’, and states

that the park shall ‘‘provide the appropriate opportunities for visitor use’’ and ‘‘coordinate area planning and management activities with those of neighboring communities to attain mutual objectives’’.

The costs to the treasury associated with the two land transactions involved in

H.R. 1000 are expected to be minimal. The annual operating costs that the Park

Service would incur in taking over the SABIS parking lot would be offset by the

costs the Park Service would forgo as a result of conveying the parking lot at Young

Street and Southern Avenue to SABIS. The Park Service would incur nominal costs

in developing a parking lot and walking trail along this property of approximately

$65,000. Additionally, the government would not incur any significant cost in carrying out this land exchange, as the both properties are substantially equal in value.

The property at Southern and Auburn Avenues has been assessed at $505,000.

The level of operational costs associated with this site is unclear at this time because we do not have a definitive plan for the use of this property.

We recommend some amendments to the language of H.R. 1000. As written, the

bill would allow the National Park Service to purchase land by donation, by purchase with donated funds, or by exchange. This would preclude the National Park

Service from using appropriated funds—including land and water conservation

funds—to acquire the property located at Southern and Auburn Avenues. We are

concerned that this prohibition could thwart the intention of the bill. This tract is

commercially viable, and we have no indication that its owner would donate it to

the National Park Service. Similarly, we are unaware of any third parties that

might have resources readily available to acquire this property and donate it to the

33

National Park Service. Nor are we aware of any exchange lands that might be available to facilitate the exchange. The National Park Service would not want to lose

a third opportunity to acquire this property, which, as noted above, has been identified in the master plan for the park as land that would further the mission of the

park and, as a corner lot, would round out the park. For these reasons, we urge

that the bill be amended to allow the National Park Service to acquire this property

with appropriated funds.

We also propose two technical amendments to the bill. These are attached to this

testimony.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.

Proposed Amendments to H.R. 1000:

On page 2, line 12, strike ‘‘448/80,225’’, and insert ‘‘ 448/80,025’’.

On page 2, line 24, strike ‘‘United States of America’’, and insert ‘‘USA’’.

On page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘only’’.

On page 3, line 19, insert ‘‘or appropriated’’ after ‘‘donated’’.

Mr. HEFLEY. Why don’t you have them join you, if they would

like to?

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Regarding H.R. 37, you stated in your testimony

that the administration supports the concept of the bill but will not

consider requesting funding for updating the studies in this or the

next fiscal year. Moreover, you stated, ‘‘In order to better plan for

the future of our national parks, we believe that such studies

should carefully examine the full life cycle of operation and maintenance cost that would result from each alternative considered.’’

Is this another way of saying that the administration opposes

any studies until the maintenance backlog for the National Park

System has been better addressed?

Ms. STEVENSON. No, sir. In the case of this bill, we have commitments for 2002, and the first time we think we could take care of

this would be 2003, in study money. We are not opposed to having

studies. We believe very strongly in your bill that passed, is now

a law, that requires us to do studies beforehand. We think that is

a great addition to the process, and we look forward to working on

this study.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, first of all, let me ask Mr. Gallegly if he would

have questions of this witness or the superintendents.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief question for

Ms. Stevenson, with the Chair’s concurrence.

Ms. Stevenson, have all of the private property owners in the,

what is it, 570 acres of publicly and privately owned land, been notified that they would be incorporated in this boundary extension?

Ms. STEVENSON. They have not been notified individually. We

have done a very strong public process, including newspaper articles and public announcements, as part of the general management

plan and in subsequent meetings. We have had individual meetings, not one-on-one but meeting with groups, to explain the process, explain what is going on. So in that sense, yes.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Congressman Sherman mentioned that he had

heard no opposition, and there was quite a broad divergence of

philosophical priorities in that region in the years past. I represented that portion that Mr. Sherman represents now in the time

prior to 1992, and I can attest to that.

I have not had any comments to my office, as a result of this legislation, in a negative vein. Congressman Sherman has voiced the

34

same thing. Has the Park Service had any concerns voiced or any

opposition by any entity, public or private?

Ms. STEVENSON. May I ask Superintendent Eck to answer that

question, please?

Mr. ECK. Mr. Gallegly, I can assure you we have received no expression of opposition from any quarter.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Would you explain to me, whoever wishes to do

that, how it would work? You have got, right kind of in the middle

of this corridor, you have got two cities or portions thereof. How

would that work in terms of the Park Service, and how would that

work in terms of the cities and the property owners there, if you

would share that with me?

Mr. ECK. Yes, I would be honored to share that with you. First

of all, let me explain the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, when it was established in 1978, really is a cooperative

effort of both the National Park Service, the State of California and

its local governments, as well as private property owners.

One of the things that is interesting about the park is that really

the private homeowners within the National Recreation Area care

every bit as much about the protection of those mountains as we

do. You might be interested to know that the entire City of Malibu,

for example, is within the National Recreation Area. There are

probably, and I haven’t seen the latest census figures, but there are

probably over 50,000 people living within the National Recreation

Area. They will always live there. A portion of the Recreation Area,

since the park was envisioned and established in 1978, it has always been understood that it would be private property.

Jurisdiction in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation

Area is exercised on the basis of ownership. Our jurisdiction extends to lands that we own. The State of California, for example,

State park rangers, their jurisdiction extends to the State parklands that they control.

As far as the significance, why this area needs to be added, this

is the one wildlife corridor that ensures the perpetuation of the

wildlife resources in the Santa Monica Mountains, along the whole

50-mile length of Highway 101 that forms pretty much the northern boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains, this is the one open

wildland corridor that connects the Santa Monica Mountains to the

mountains to the north.

Mr. HEFLEY. Any other questions? Jimmy?

Mr. DUNCAN. I am just curious. I don’t really understand exactly

what limitations there are, if any, on these private landowners, the

330 acres of developed residential areas, and some of the other

parts, too. If a homeowner wanted to cut down all the trees in their

back yard, and the neighbors around it objected and came to the

Park Service, what would happen?

Mr. ECK. Well, I think we would tell them that they would need

to go somewhere else with their concern, because it is not within

our jurisdiction.

Mr. DUNCAN. So there are no restrictions or limitations that you

can think of, big or small, on these homeowners?

Mr. ECK. Not from the National Park Service. Now, Los Angeles

County or the city government—

35

Mr. DUNCAN. No, I am not talking, I am not worried about that.

That is— Mr. ECK. Right.

Mr. DUNCAN. But no restrictions, no limitations?

Mr. ECK. Absolutely.

Mr. DUNCAN. They can sell their property? They can sell their

home if they want to?

Mr. ECK. They do every day, yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. And they can do anything that is legal under local

laws?

Mr. ECK. That is correct.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. HEFLEY. That is a good course of questioning, because that

is one of the problems I have with having the cities in here.

I think it is the National Parks and Conservation Association,

which I read a letter by one of their officials recently which indicated that one of the goals that we should have for our National

Park System is to have all motorized vehicles taken out of the

parks. Now, that doesn’t mean just skimobiles and personalized

watercraft, but that means cars and everything.

If that idiotic idea were to prevail, what would that mean to

something like this, which is a unit of the park system but you

have got the whole City of Santa Monica and you have these other

cities. What would that mean?

Ms. STEVENSON. If I may, NPCA I am sure has the best of intentions in terms of motorized vehicles, but it is clear that that would

never prevail in a park like this and should not prevail in a park

like this.

Mr. HEFLEY. Would you agree that that should not prevail in

many of our national parks, such as Yellowstone and those kind of

parks? And I am not talking about the issue of snowmobiles, I am

talking about people being able to drive in and see the park.

Ms. STEVENSON. Some parks do have too many cars at some

times of the year, and we are very anxious to find ways to transport people in ways that they like, while preserving the environment and allowing them the access that they need. And I don’t

think we know all the answers at this point, so I am not in a position to say yes or no, but it is not our goal to ban all cars from

all parks.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Can I ask, there is a provision in this legislation

that says this recreation area, that the purpose for the recreation

area is ‘‘to manage the area in a manner that will preserve and enhance its scenic natural and historic setting while providing for the

recreational and educational needs of the visiting public.’’

Now, obviously all over the country there has been a lot of disagreement about what is scenic, and every inch of land in this

country could be called historic. It has been there long before any

of us got here. And what I am wondering about, once again, is if

a private landowner wants to sell his property for some type of

commercial development, say to put up a McDonald’s, would you all

have any ability to come in there under this legislation and stop

that?

Mr. ECK. No, we would have no ability.

36

Mr. DUNCAN. In other words, if it is all right under local zoning

laws—Mr. ECK. Right.

Mr. DUNCAN. —then it is all right with you?

Mr. ECK. Right.

Mr. DUNCAN. Even if the whole neighborhood said, ‘‘This McDonald’s’’ or this whatever ‘‘is going to disrupt the scenery in this

recreation area.’’ Mr. ECK. Well, I want to be clear, we have the same standing

as any other private property owner, whether they own a quarter

of an acre of land or 15 acres or whatever. So, I mean, conceivably

we might write a letter to the planning commission and express,

you know, reservations that we might have.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I have got no problem with that— Mr. ECK. Right.

Mr. DUNCAN. —because anybody in this country, whether they

work for the Federal Government or not, should be allowed to express their opinion.

Mr. ECK. Right.

Mr. DUNCAN. But it would still be up to the local authorities.

Mr. ECK. That is absolutely right. That is absolutely right.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. And the motorized vehicles that the

Chairman was talking about, is there anything in this legislation

that would restrict what they call off-road vehicles?

Mr. ECK. No, and with respect to general motorized vehicles, I

might just point out, through this area is Highway 101, and it has

130,000 daily automobile trips through that very gap in that area,

so it would be quite unfeasible to contemplate limiting motorized

vehicles.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, in general terms I think the Park Service does

a wonderful job of managing units such as this, and managing

most of your units, as a matter of fact. But I would just emphasize

something that Mr. Duncan stated, and that is, there are two

charges of the Park Service, and one is to protect the resource and

the other is provide for the enjoyment of the public of that resource.

I hope we remember that and keep it in balance. I don’t think

it was always kept in balance by some members of the last administration, and I would hope that we would keep that in balance because that is very, very important. My childhood memories of experiences in the national park are some of my most cherished memories, and I would not want us to shut future generations out.

So, any further questions? If not, I thank the panel and appreciate your being here.

Our next panel will be made up of Mr. Bill Watson, the OregonCalifornia Trail Association; Jeanne Watson, the Oregon-California

Trail Association; Patrick Hearty, National Pony Express Association; and Mike Berger, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. I

would assume it is not accidental that we have two Watsons on the

panel. There may be some relation there.

Mr. WATSON. Only 47 years, sir.

Mr. HEFLEY. Forty-seven years?

Mr. WATSON. Yes.

37

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, congratulations.

Mr. WATSON. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Do you have an order you would like to speak, or

shall I just start over here at the left, Mr. Watson, with you?

Mr. WATSON. Whatever you would like.

Mr. HEFLEY. Why don’t you go ahead, then?

Mr. WATSON. All right, sir.

Mr. HEFLEY. And we will move down the line.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. WATSON, OREGON-CALIFORNIA

TRAIL ASSOCIATION

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this third

opportunity—

Mr. HEFLEY. Excuse me. We will try to keep the statements to

5 minutes, if you can, and then we will have time for questions.

Mr. WATSON. Yes. Thank you.

This is the third opportunity I have had to address this distinguished Subcommittee. In 1989 and 1991 it was under the heretofore Chairman, then Bruce Vento, who was very supportive, and

that was to authorize the establishment of the California and the

Pony Express Trails. In 1991 when we were here, the bill was

sponsored by a good supporter, Congressman Bereuter from

Nebraska. In that bill, by the way, we did agree that there would

be no condemnation and no condemnation of Federal land leases,

and at that point the House bill was accepted by the Senate and

in 1992 became law. We appreciate your support.

Our Oregon-California Trails Association is about 19 years old.

We now have 4,200 members. Last year they donated over 56,000

volunteer hours plus volunteered expenses, for a total value of

about $1 million, to our trails. So we have active people working

to help preserve the trails.

But the question has been raised about all of these routes, and

I would like to call your attention to the Park Service maps A and

B. The lines, red, green, blue and so forth, identify routes to be

studied. But the important thing is, as mentioned by Congressman

Bereuter, the yellow shows that these are routes already part of a

National Historic Trail.

For example, the Cherokee has been proposed for study. It is endorsed by the Cherokee Nation. It was endorsed last year by the

Governor of Oklahoma. Three hundred and fifty miles of it is already part of the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. So, for a lot of

these, it is not a matter of adding miles to the trails system but

adding additional trail logos to represent the other trails that used

this same corridor, and we have asked for a slight change in the

wording of H.R. 37 to reflect this situation.

In Congressman Bereuter’s ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter and also in

his testimony, he pointed out concerns about condemnation of private land, no condemnation of private lands or Federal land leases.

And we have worked regularly with private landowners, and the

Trails Act offers them a site certification and access limits process,

where a private landowner can say, ‘‘We agree to participate,’’ and

‘‘they can close the land for no public access, have unlimited access,

or even 1 day a year and specify what date.’’ And many of the

38

people along the trails, the Oregon and California Trails, are doing

that today.

Our KANSA Chapter in north central Kansas is working on a

Park Service project with four ranch families to do nonobtrusive archaeological research of four grave sites on private land, and this

has been well received. We had a slight problem with equipment

freezing, but we expect to have results soon, and the landowners

are delighted because this has been part of their heritage for 150

years.

We have worked in South Pass with Exxon, as I testified in ’91.

We are now working with Wolverine Gas & Oil on a drilling process, and have a joint venture going with them on how to minimize

the impact on the trail, and I guess it is working because the president of Wolverine just joined our Oregon-California Trails Association.

So with that, I would like to ask you to support this H.R. 37 and

thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]

Statement of William C. Watson, Co–Chair, Trails Liaison Committee,

Oregon–California Trails Association, on H.R. 37

Chairman Hefley, Ranking Member Christian–Christensen and other Subcommittee members and guests, thank you very much for this third opportunity to

testify before your distinguished Subcommittee. November 7, 1989, and April 11,

1991, Chairman Bruce Vento invited us to testify in support of legislation to create

the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails. It is nice to see a few familiar faces from our previous visits.

Today, the Oregon–California Trails Association, National Pony Express Association, Mormon Trails Association and Iowa Mormon Trails Association jointly urge

you to approve H.R. 37, authorizing the Update Feasibility Study for our trails.

I would like to re-emphasizing several key points made in Congressman Doug Bereuter’s March 13, 2001, Dear Colleague letter (copy attached) encouraging support

and co-sponsorship of H.R. 37:

‘‘This legislation should be non-controversial, as it would simply recognize the fact that there are additional routes and cutoffs which may deserve

inclusion in the National Trails System.’’

‘‘No condemnation of private lands or Federal leases is to be contemplated to add any of these routes to the trails.’’ This agreement was

made in 1992, before the trails were authorized, to satisfy landowners &

leaseholders concerns.

‘‘Although the National Park service is supportive of efforts to examine

these additional routes, it has determined that congressional legislation is

needed to provide the authorization.’’

We recognize that not every route proposed for study may meet the criteria of the

National Trails Act and qualify for inclusion in the National Trails System. The

Oregon and California routes proposed for study represent thousands of volunteer

hours researching and retracing them. We request a slight change in H.R. 37 to recognize study routes shared with an established National Historic Trail. See yellow

lines on Maps A&B.

OCTA/PRIVATE LANDOWNER COOPERATION

Quoting from my April 10, 1991 testimony before this Subcommittee: ‘‘We also

work with private landowners, calling attention to the importance of the overland

trails, obtaining permission to mark trail ruts and emigrant graves, and requesting

access to trail sites for special occasions.’’ Any activities on private land are with

the concurrence of the land owner/manager.

The National Trails Act provides private landowners a opportunity for Site Certification. If the landowner elects Certification, an agreement is signed with the

National Park Service which specifies public access: every day; one day a year and

what date; no public access. Many private landowners have participated in Certification since the 1986 designation of the Oregon Trail and 1992 designation of the

California & Pony Express Trails.

39

Our KANSA Chapter in northeast Kansas is working with private landowners

and the National Park Service using side-scan radar to do archaeological research

of four emigrant grave sites without disturbing the ground. Like many private landowners, these ranch families have protected these graves for 160 years. At the end

of the first day, the ranchers hosted a team pot luck dinner and KANSA members

hosted the next night. Unfortunately, some equipment froze during this November

trial, so this study will be completed after the spring thaw.

The Oregon–California Trails Association’s 19th annual convention will be in Casper, Wyoming, from August 15–18. Each year we meet at a different place along

the trail. Two days are devoted to speakers on trail related subjects. Two more days

are devoted to trail tours. Then, there are pre and post convention trail tours, many

requiring 4-wheel drive. Wyoming chapter members working closely with private

and public landowners make this year’s tours possible. It is always a thrill to have

local families show us the trail remnants across their land and to hear their history.

OCTA/ENERGY INDUSTRY COOPERATION

Again quoting from my April 10, 1991, testimony before this Subcommittee: ‘‘Over

the last eight years (now 18 years), OCTA has worked with major corporations, such

as EXXON and the Altamont Pipeline Co., to insure that the Overland Trails are

disturbed as little as possible when public needs for energy resources require crossing routes of the pioneers.’’ OCTA’s cooperative efforts with EXXON and the resulting minimum impact on our four trails was featured in EXXON’s corporate magazine.

Last month, BLM, NPS, OCTA, Wyoming SHPO and Wolverine Gas & Oil representatives met in Rock Springs, Wyoming, to discuss proposed exploratory drilling

of 3 wells near the Sandy Crossing and South Pass on BLM lands adjacent to the

Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express National Historic Trails.

Over lunch, the Wolverine President and our National Preservation Officer discussed mutual concerns including a group of protest letters written by local fourth

graders about this planned drilling. Wolverine plans to do lateral drilling at least

one-quarter mile from the trail.

OCTA and the NPS urged them to use an accordion approach in this rugged land

so that the drilling is behind natural formations and not on top of them. Plans are

to use an existing BLM road across the trail to move equipment and supplies. If

a pipeline is required, hopefully, it will be under that BLM road.

Our Preservation Officer met with the fourth graders that afternoon and told

them not to blame Wolverine for working in historic South Pass because they were

helping solve America’s energy problem. He shared their concerns about protecting

the trails and assured them that all participants in the morning meeting will be

working together to minimize the trails impact of that work. By the way, the Wolverine President is now an OCTA member.

Early day fur trappers and traders named the South Pass they used when crossing the Continental Divide at this location. On August 22, 1843, Theodore Talbot

(with the Fremont 2nd Expedition) wrote: ‘‘Today we set foot in Oregon Territory,

the land of promise. As of yet, it only promises an increased supply of sagebrush

and sand.’’ Elizabeth Dixon Smith’s July 31, 1847, journal entry reads: ‘‘Passed over

one mountain and camped at the foot of South Pass. Here we found some gooseberries.’’ And, August 1 she noted: ‘‘Passed over the Rocky Mountains, the backbone

of America.’’

As our Preservation Officer Dick Ackerman noted: ‘‘These early travelers over this

dirty, dusty rocky ribbon of a trail made a difference. They were settling the Pacific

frontier and with these settlements made our country the ocean to ocean Nation

that it is today. Today’s travelers can share the pioneer experience. They can stand

there and look both ways and try to imagine what it was like for those early travelers. This is why we need to do our best to keep it looking the same.’’

Last year, OCTA CA/NV chapter members worked with the U.S. Senate staff and

the Nevada BLM to plan and create the Black Rock/High Rock National Conservation Area legislation that protects the California and Oregon Trails through that

area while allowing continued multiple use of those lands. Today, OCTA chapter

members continue their work with the BLM to plan and implement this National

Conservation Area.

CALIFORNIA NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

MISSOURI VALLEY ROUTES

The 1987 California Trail Feasibility and Desirability Study assumed that: ‘‘Most

of theses ruts and traces are west of Casper, Wyoming, ...’’ Subsequent extensive

diary research plus ground searches by Oregon–California Trail Association members located numerous swales, ruts, remanent of river and creek crossings, etc., in

40

the Missouri Valley. Many of these sites are on private land and have been preserved for 160 years as part of these proud landowners’ family heritage.

OCTA’s research identified 19 Missouri Valley routes, shown in green, that are

proposed for study under H.R. 37. Most will be multi-use shared routes. For instance, OCTA/NPEA research indicates that Fort Leavenworth to Big Blue River

Route was used by Oregon and California bound emigrants and Pony Express

riders.

CENTRAL ROUTES

Seven Central Routes proposed for study, shown in green, include the Cherokee

Trail which has not been designated a National Trail. Because of its significance,

the Cherokee is marked and preserved in Wyoming by the BLM and OCTA volunteers.

Last year, at the request of the Wyoming BLM, OCTA contributed $5,000 toward

BLM purchase of new concrete markers for the Cherokee Trail. This spring OCTA

and the BLM will install those markers. So if the Cherokee Trail qualifies as a California trail route, it will not significantly increase the number of trail miles on Wyoming BLM land.

The Cherokee Trail was under study and included in the draft California Trail

Comprehensive Management Plan until a Solicitor’s Opinion dropped it from the

CMP. While under study, the Governor of Oklahoma wrote a letter to NPS Director

Bob Stanton supporting the designation of the Cherokee Trail as a branch of the

California National Historic Trail.

The Cherokee Trail was used by native Americans, Anglos and blacks from Oklahoma Territory who went west for the California gold rush. The Cherokee Trail segment from Rawlins, WY, to Fort Bridger received heavy use by Mormon pioneers

during the 1860s, making this a shared route. One segment of the Cherokee Trail

shares one part of the Santa Fe National Historic Trail.

A few weeks ago, we represented the Oregon–California Trails Association during

the sixth Trails Advocacy Week. Mary Tidwell from the Trails Of Tears Association

announced the Cherokee Nation’s support for H.R. 37 and the inclusion of the Cherokee Trail as a route on the California Trail. Their support is greatly appreciated.

WESTERN ROUTES

Eight Western routes, shown in green, are proposed for study under H.R. 37.

Most of them were excluded from the original Feasibility Study or were ordered deleted from the Comprehensive Management Plan.

For example, 1991 testimony noted the 150th anniversary of the Bidwell–

Bartleson route which was deleted by Solicitor’s Order from the final California

Trail Comprehensive Management Plan.

‘‘On May l2, l85l, the Bidwell–Bartleson Company left from the Kansas City area.

They did not have a map showing the way to California, because none existed. Thirty-one men, one woman (Mrs. Nancy Kelsey) and her infant daughter began their

journey by following the Oregon Trail, traveling west with other emigrants. About

560 miles beyond Fort Laramie, they left the established Oregon Trail to find a

route across the unknown territory stretching to California. After leaving their wagons in the desert and wandering lost for days, the Bidwell–Bartleson party finally

reached the Sierra Nevada mountains. They crossed somewhere near present day

Sonora Pass and arrived in California on October 30, 1891. The accomplishments

of the Bidwell–Bartleson company, including those of Nancy Kelsey, who became the

first white woman to cross the Sierras, will be widely celebrated this year.’’

The year 2001 is an excellent time to pass H.R. 37 and recognize the 160th anniversary of the first overland pioneers to reach California.

The Carson Route is an authorized branch of the California Trail. It was developed from west to east by the Mormon Battalion as an easier route over the Sierras

than the Truckee/Donner Route.

A 71 mile long portion from Genoa, Nevada to Union House, California is a High

Potential Segment where today’s travelers can still share some of the emigrant experience. Our family has worked on preserving and interpreting about half this segment for 30 years. In Hope Valley, the Big Trees Route (proposed for study) cuts

southwest from the Carson. It was used by many gold seekers headed for the southern mines.

After the Carson Route crosses the Sierra it cuts northwest to Union House near

Tragedy Spring. The Volcano Road study route continues west from the Carson to

the Volcano gold rush town where Union sympathizers used a cannon to protect

gold bullion from possible seizure by Confederate sympathizers.

Our family works every summer as Forest Service Adopt–A–Trail volunteers

marking and maintaining the top 2 1/2 miles of this segment from Emigrant Valley

41

(elev. 8,000 ft.) up to Covered Wagon Summit and West Pass (elev. 9,600 ft.) In late

June, we again will have three generations working on our adopted trail.

The segment from Caples Lake up to Emigrant Valley is maintained by Kirkwood

Mountain Resort Homeowners. The segment west from ours, used by high clearance

vehicles since the late 1940s, is maintained by a Four Wheel Drive Club.

A joint Forest Service/Kirkwood Mountain/OCTA plan will soon:

• Establish additional ski runs without impairing the trail, including the new Emigrant (ski) Run down our trail;

• Install trail interpretative signs on lift towers and the snack bar;

• Create a new off-the-ruts wild flower trail for hikers & horses;

• Provide for new mountain bike trails off the Carson Route.

Jeanne and I lead trail hikes for Kirkwood guests and employees and give public

trail talks at Kirkwood and Kit Carson Lodge. A Kirkwood employee volunteer work

day helped mark most of our Adopt–A–Trail segment.

SHARED CALIFORNIA & OREGON NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS

California was the first designated multi-route National Historic Trail. Oregon

was designated a point-to-point National Historic Trail with two alternate routes.

Seven routes are proposed for study under H.R. 37.

The Comprehensive Management Planning process, determined that seven designated California NHT Routes were shared by emigrants bound for Oregon. Plans

to identify these shared Oregon Routes, shown in red and yellow, were barred by

a Solicitor’s Opinion. If authorized, no route miles would be added and the Oregon

NHT marker would be installed by volunteers.

The Applegate Route of the California NHT illustrates the problems created by

the Solicitor’s Order. The Applegate was used during the California gold rush and

also was the Southern route to Oregon. It traverses over 300 miles through Southern Oregon, yet can not have Oregon NHT markers.

Our Oregon OCTA members urge: ‘‘Please pass H.R. 37 so we can put an Oregon

NHT marker on the interpretive sign outside the Oregon State House in Salem.’’

Today it just reads ‘‘California National Historic Trail’’. Designation of these Shared

Routes would add trail logos and not significantly increase management costs.

CENSUS OF EMIGRANT DOCUMENTS (COED)

Oregon–California Trails Association members developed the Census Of Emigrant

Documents (COED) database which currently contains information from 2,263 emigrant diaries, letters and reminiscences about their trips along these trails. The research and entry data documentation was done by OCTA members and historical

society volunteers. Some 64,271 emigrant names are currently contained in OCTA’s

COED database. This database is already being searched to begin producing emigrant quotes about the routes proposed for study under H.R. 37.

FOUR TRAILS GIS DATABASE

Utah University is developing and operating the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails GIS Database under contract with the National Park

Service Long Distance Trails Office in Salt Lake City.

Ninety-five percent of the initial Four Trails GPS mapping was done by volunteers using a variety of equipment, requiring different calibrations and adjustments,

which complicated the University of Utah’s development of this GIS Database.

Even so, during last year’s extreme fire emergency, this Database provided computer map files identifying our Four Trails routes, significant sites and segments

for use by the Interagency Fire Control Center in Boise, ID. To our knowledge, none

of the significant sites and segments identified for our four trails were damaged by

fire. A number of wooden BLM Cherokee Trail markers were destroyed by wild fire.

But, this route is not yet eligible for inclusion in the Four Trails GIS Database.

OCTA contributed $5,000 toward cement replacement markers to be installed this

spring by Wyoming OCTA volunteers and the BLM. Passage of H.R. 37 and completion of the study should allow the California National Historic Trail logo to be added

on these BLM Cherokee Trail markers.

OCTA is using National Park Service Challenge Cost Share dollars to purchase

sophisticated GPS units and provide volunteer training on their use. This new input

will allow the Four Trails GIS Database to pinpoint the location of Significant Sites

and Segments, interpretive signs and kiosks, and even the location of installed trail

markers for tracking purposes.

In conclusion, we urge this House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks,

Recreation and Public Lands to endorse H.R. 37. Thank you for your time. If you

have any questions, we will gladly try to answer them or get answers for you.

42

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Mrs. Watson?

STATEMENT OF JEANNE H. WATSON, OREGON-CALIFORNIA

TRAIL ASSOCIATION

Mrs. WATSON. Thank you, Chairman Hefley and members of the

Committee. I am speaking today on the Oregon National Historic

Trail, which when it was designated in 1978, was considered a

point-to-point route from Independence, Missouri to Oregon City.

Well, not exactly.

There are 11 other routes that were used by pioneers to the

Oregon Territory. Two of these 11 routes go through the State of

Washington, taking pioneers to the Puget Sound and Tacoma regions. There are three trails in Idaho that are considered by the

BLM as part of the Oregon Trail. And in 1995 the Oregon State

Legislature designated five of the trails in Oregon as important alternates to the Oregon Trail.

It is ironic that the first trail to Oregon, opened in 1836, has

never been part of any National Historic Trail. This is the Whitman Mission Route, where the Whitmans and the Spauldings arrived to set up a mission with the Indians. Narcissa Whitman, wife

of Dr. Marcus Whitman, wrote in 1840, ‘‘We are emphatically situated on the highway between the States and the Columbia River.’’ In those days it was the Oregon Trail. And the Whitman Mission

is today a national historic place, but yet the trail bypassed it after

1843 and 44, so this route needs to be picked up and added to the

Oregon Trail.

Another one of the interesting examples is the Applegate route.

It is listed only as part of the California National Historic Trail,

yet it is the trail to southern Oregon and cannot be so marked. You

can imagine how the Oregonians have reacted to this, when the

sign for the Applegate Trail in front of the State House in Salem

lists only ‘‘California Trail.’’ This occurred because in 1992 nothing

was done to add trails to the Oregon National Historic Trail designation.

The trail was opened in 1846 from west to east, intersecting the

California Trail on the Humboldt River in Nevada. Today this segment is part of the newly established High Rock-Black Rock

National Conservation Area that was passed and approved at the

end of the last session of Congress.

Californians using this route turned left and went into northern

California, while the Oregonians went into the southern part of

their State. So this needs to be rectified, and there are two

branches of the Applegate route that led into northern California

in the Gold Rush era, that are also included for addition in the

California section of H.R. 37.

To quickly cite just one more example, in Idaho the Goodale cutoff leads from Fort Hall to the Boise Valley, and in 1862 there were

more than 1,000 wagons with 900-plus men and 300 women and

children who made that crossing, opening this route for further

traffic. It was used right up to 1904, until the railroad made it possible to abandon wagon travel into Idaho.

So all of these routes, including the others of the 11 that I have

not named and which are in my written testimony, deserve to be

43

studied for inclusion in the National Historic Trails, and we are

asking for your support for this study, for H.R. 37. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Watson follows:]

Statement of Jeanne H. Watson, Co–Chair, Trails Liaison Committee,

Oregon–California Trails Association (OCTA) and U.S. Forest Service

Adopt–A–Trail Volunteer

Historic Trails to the ‘‘Oregon County’’

In 1978 when the Oregon Trail was designated as a National Historic Trail it was

generally considered to be a point-to-point route. Not exactly . . . . there are two

alternates, one in Idaho and the other in Oregon, but another eleven pioneer trails

to the Oregon Territory have been overlooked.

In 1995 Oregon House Bill 2966 recognized five routes as ‘‘alternates’’ of the

Oregon Trail. Also listed separately in this bill is the ‘‘Applegate (California)

National Historic Trail’’, designated in 1992 as part of the California National Historic Trail.

Two other routes, used by pioneers crossing Oregon to settle in present-day Washington State, may be eligible for National Historic Trail designation. Three additional routes in Idaho are also considered cross-country segments of the Oregon

National Historic Trail.

Passage of H.R. 37 will allow studies of these eleven routes for possible addition

to the Oregon National Historic Trail.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(1–OR) It seems rather ironic that the route of the first Oregon pioneers has not

been designated as part of the Oregon Trail. For years the Whitman Mission Route,

first traveled in 1836, was THE Oregon Trail. As Narcissa Whitman wrote in 1840:

‘‘We are emphatically situated on the highway between the States and the Columbia

River.’’ Narcissa and her husband, Dr. Marcus Whitman, along with the Rev. Henry

Spaulding and wife, Eliza, were Presbyterian missionaries from upper New York

State. Narcissa and Eliza, the first white women to cross the Rocky Mountains, are

remembered with a special marker at South Pass. Their company took a two-wheel

cart to Oregon, proving wheeled vehicles could make the trip successfully. The Whitman Mission Route served as the main stem of the Oregon Trail during the earliest

years of the mass overland migrations but later bypassed by the route in 1978 designated as the Oregon National Historic Trail.

The Whitman Mission National Historic Site at Walla Walla, WA, interprets this

trail story and its link with Native Americans as do signs by the Oregon Trail Coordinating Council. Exhibits also interpret this history at Tamastslikt Cultural Institute on the Umatilla Indian Reservation near Pendleton, OR.

(2–OR) In 1843–44 the Upper Columbia River Route became the only trail to the

Willamette Valley. A day’s horseback journey west of the Whitman Mission, it started at a Hudson Bay Company post, where emigrants built rafts to float down the

river to The Dalles, a treacherous trip with loss of lives and belongings. The Applegate family experienced such tragedy in 1843 when the river claimed the lives of

two 10-year-old cousins and another family member as a boat upset in a whirlpool.

Emigrants could avoid the river by traveling along the bank, negotiating steep

cliffs and rocky shorelines. In 1844 Oregon emigrants found a way to bypass the

Whitman Mission completely by following the Umatilla River to the Columbia, saving several days’ travel. By the late 1840s use had declined as emigrants followed

new trails across the desert south of the river.

Oregon Trail Coordinating Council signs interpret this route at two kiosks and it

is included in exhibits at the Columbia Gorge Discovery Center in The Dalles.

(3–OR) Although listed as part of the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails in 1992, the Applegate Route has never been included as part of Oregon

National Historic Trail. Although also known as the Southern Route to Oregon, it

can only be marked with California Trail signs, including one near the State Capitol

in Salem, Oregon. Oregon pioneers traveling this southern route left the Oregon

Trail at the Raft River to continue towards California before going north across Nevada to Oregon.

The Applegate route, opened in 1846 by brothers Jesse and Lindsay Applegate to

avoid the Columbia River, served as an alternate southern route; opened from west

to east it met the California Trail along the Humboldt River. Jesse Applegate lead

the first company of 200 Oregon pioneers with nearly 100 wagons. The route was

used by both Oregon pioneers and California-bound emigrants, who turned off to

reach northern California. After the 1848 discovery of gold, Oregonians followed the

44

Applegate Route to reach the northern California mines via the Lassen Cutoff. Peter

Burnett (later governor of Oregon) led 150 pioneers with 50 wagons from Oregon

City, taking the first wheeled vehicles to Peter Lassen’s ranch in the Sacramento

Valley.

Although used for a decade, the Burnett Cutoff is not designated as part of any

National Historic Trail. Neither is the 1852 trail, which leads from the Applegate

route south of lower Klamath Lake to the Yreka (CA) area. As ‘‘shared routes,’’ the

Applegate Trail and these cutoffs should be marked as part of both the Oregon and

California National Historic Trails.

The Applegate Trail winds through the newly established Black Rock Desert and

High Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada. Interpretation also includes 18 signs placed along the route in Oregon by the Applegate Trail Coalition

with support from the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council to complement existing

signs, exhibits and commemorative markers. Museums and historical societies in

southern counties of Oregon have cooperated in publication of a trail guide for this

Southern Route.

(4–OR) The Oregon Legislative Assembly proclaimed 1995 as the ‘‘Year of the

Meek Cutoff Trail,’’ opened 150 years earlier by 1,000 persons with 200 wagons.

This route, named for leader Stephen Meek, crossed the middle of Oregon through

high desert to the central Cascade mountains. It is the most infamous of Oregon

Trail route because the company became lost and could not find water; at least 23

persons died during the 52-day ordeal. Rescue parties were sent from The Dalles,

with help from mountain man Moses ‘‘Black’’ Harris.

The Meek Cutoff has been interpreted with several Oregon historical markers and

BLM signs along the route and an exhibit at the High Desert Museum in Bend, OR.

(5–OR) An Oregon Trail route used from 1848 to 1884, this 1847 Cutoff to the

Barlow Road made it easier for emigrants to cross the Cascades to Oregon City. The

Cutoff saved 100 miles as well as a week of travel time but could require three days

to cross the Deschutes River before a bridge was built in 1852. (The Barlow Road

section of the Oregon National Historic Trail provided an alternative route around

Mount Hood.)

This Cutoff is interpreted with BLM signs, an Oregon Trails Coordinating Council

kiosk and Oregon historic markers as well as driving tours and brochures by the

Sherman County Historical Society.

(6–OR) The Free Emigrant Road, opened in 1853, followed part of the Meek cutoff

before turning south and then west to continue north to settlements at Eugene City.

The Elijah Elliott train with 215 wagons successfully crossed the desert in 1853 but

became stranded in the Cascade Mountains. A 70-mile waterless stretch followed by

October snow and freezing mountain temperatures required rescue by a relief party.

In 1854 William Macy succeeded in leading 121 wagons across both the desert and

the Cascades following the newly completed Free Emigrant Road, so named because

no toll was charged (unlike the Barlow Road). The road continued to be used

through the 1860s with nearly 500 wagons and 2,500 persons traveling to the Willamette Valley.

To date no interpretive facilities exist. As Charlotte Pengra commented in 1853

‘‘all are afraid to try it’’ because at that time nothing was known about the route.

(7–WA) Established in 1845, the Cowlitz River Route led from the river’s headwaters to the southern tip of Puget Sound. Among early settlers were the first black

emigrants to the Pacific Northwest, including the founder of the present-day

Centralia.

Ezra Meeker, who followed this trail in 1852, became the first Oregon Trail preservationist when he realized in 1906 the pioneer trail was fast disappearing. He

found an old wagon (now on exhibit at the Washington State Museum in Tacoma)

and began retracing the trail with an ox team. Meeker presented programs and put

up commemorative markers, with school children often contributing pennies. Many

of his markers still survive including one at South Pass. Upon reaching the east cost

Meeker drove his wagon down Wall Street in New York City and later parked on

the lawn of the Capitol in Washington DC. His preservation efforts to save the trail

also included trips along the Oregon Trail by car, train and airplane. Today these

markers still provide interpretation of this trail.

(8–WA) Connecting Fort Walla Walla (site of the Whitman Mission) to the Puget

Sound, the Naches Pass Trail was opened in 1853. It bypassed both the Columbia

River and the Willamette Valley and was known as the ‘‘Walla Walla to Steilacoom

Pioneer Citizen’s Trail.’’ Although it required 68 river crossings, it saved 200 miles

of travel. The existing trail was improved for wagon travel in 1853 when Congress

appropriated $20,000 and Captain George McClellan (future Civil War general) supervised clearing it for military use. Ezra Meeker, who traveled the Oregon Trail

six times, followed this route in 1854.

45

In 1910 the Washington and Oregon Historical Societies joined to mark the

Naches Pass Trail. Other interpretive activities include signing programs at various

sites.

(9–ID) The Northside Alternate followed the north side of the Snake River from

the vicinity of Fort Hall, passing Shoshone Falls, to the Thousand Springs area

where it connected with the North Alternate Oregon Trail (see 10–ID). The first

Bishop to Oregon followed this route in 1847 on horseback, while his wagons took

the trail south of the river to Three Island Crossing. In 1852 Dr. Thomas White

found by going along this northwest route to Fort Boise the distance could be ‘‘shortened nearly in half’’ and also had better grass and water.

In 1993 a BLM and Idaho State Historical Society trails publication stated additional research was needed to determine trail usage but surface evidence plus early

township survey plats indicate heavy wagon use.

(10–ID) In 1852 a ferry established above Salmon Falls made it possible for emigrants to cross the Snake River to the north side. At Teapot Dome this route followed the main trail to Boise. Known as the North Alternate, in 1847 the Northside

Alternate (9–ID) connected with it while in 1869 Kelton Road, a freight and stage

route, used it. The North Alternate avoided a dry and difficult stretch of the Oregon

Trail from Salmon Falls across the desert to Three Island Crossing, where it became

the main northern route.

The North Alternate is interpreted at Malad Gorge State Park with additional

segments marked by the Hagerman Historical Society. BLM white posts also mark

this route, determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places. The story of the Oregon Trail in this region is also interpreted by a BLM

site and park at Bonneville Point.

(11–ID) The Goodale Cutoff began on the north side of the Snake River at Ft. Hall

and rejoined the Oregon Trail south of Boise Valley on the north side of the Snake

River. It crossed the Lost River and Camus Prairie following a traditional Shoshone

Indian route, avoiding an Oregon Trail loop along the Snake River. It was named

for Tim Goodale, a trader in the Snake Country, who lead a large combined wagon

train in 1862 across this route [known as the Jeffrey Cutoff but used only in 1853–

54]. According to Nellie Slater the 1862 company consisted of 1,238 wagons with 998

men and 300 women and children.

This Cutoff required a ‘‘dreaded drive’’ through ankle-deep dust before reaching

good water and feed on the Camus Prairie, according to Julius Merrill in 1864. It

followed the perimeter of Craters of the Moon National Monument Area and is included in the National Register of Historic Places. Wagons followed the Goodale

Cutoff as late as 1904. Later Goodale opened a north-west continuation of his Cutoff, crossing the Powder River to join the Oregon Trail below Flagstaff Hill near

Baker City, Oregon.

Preservation includes granite highway markers plus marking on public lands by

BLM and the OCTA–Idaho chapter. It is included on the 1990 official Idaho highway map and in 1994 covered wagons rolled along this route during a re-enactment,

as occurred along several Oregon Trail routes during the 1993–94 sesquicentennial

celebrations.

SOURCES

Oregon Historic Trails Report, Oregon Trail Coordinating Council, 1998;

An Initiative for Significant Historic Trail Routes in Oregon and Washington,

Oregon Trail Coordinating Council and OCTA - Northwest Chapter, 1995

Emigrant Trails of Southern Idaho, Bureau of Land Management and Idaho State

Historical Society, 1993

Routes of the Oregon Trail in Idaho, Bicentennial Commission Idaho Historical

Society and Idaho Transportation Department, 1976

Overland Journal, OCTA, 1990 and 1996

Mr. HEFLEY. Let the record show that I don’t think Mrs. Watson

used notes to do that. You are quite a historian, and we appreciate

that. That is very, very interesting.

Mrs. WATSON. Well, I came from New Jersey after 25 years

there, and as Rush Holt will tell you, I can name New Jersey and

Maryland pioneers as well, at the drop of a hat.

Mr. HEFLEY. Great. Mr. Hearty?

46

STATEMENT OF PATRICK HEARTY, NATIONAL PONY EXPRESS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. HEARTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members

of the Subcommittee, and friends. Unlike the Watsons, I am a rookie here, and unlike Mrs. Watson, I cannot do this unprompted.

But I would also like to speak on behalf of bill H.R. 37, which

will impact the four long distance National Historic Trails, which

are specifically the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and the

Pony Express Trails. And in the time that I am allotted, I would

like to offer three thoughts regarding this bill which are largely in

concert with the statements of my trail colleagues.

First I would like to emphasize the importance of this bill to expand the scope of the National Historic Trails. The Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, as presently authorized, was put together in the same fashion as the Oregon Trail, as a point-to-point

trail. It includes only the 1846 and 1847 route followed by Brigham

Young with the initial party called the Vanguard Company.

Subsequent groups of Mormon pioneers crossing Iowa traveled

well to the north on trails that were mostly shared by other westward immigrants, thereby avoiding major problems with mud along

the original trail. Also, the routes of the handcart companies, which

are largely across Iowa, are similarly not included in the National

Historic Trail as it presently exists. Further west in Wyoming, the

trail of the wagon trains sent out from Great Salt Lake City in the

1860’s to pick up emigrants from the railhead—they were called

the ‘‘down and back’’ companies—this trail also is not recognized as

part of the Historic Trail.

An estimated 70,000 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter Day Saints traveled the emigrant trails to Utah Territory

prior to 1869, when the railroad was completed, the transcontinental railroad. The present Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail adequately tells the story of less than 200 of these.

Second, I wish to reassure you that the establishment of the

National Historic Trails is in no way detrimental to the rights of

private landowners along these trails. The National Pony Express

Association, which I represent, goes to great lengths to maintain

good relations with both the private and public landowners and

managers.

We conduct an annual horseback reenactment along the Pony

Express Trail, wherein a leather mail pouch or ‘‘mochila’’ which is

filled with commemorative letters is relayed nearly 2,000 miles between St. Joseph, Missouri and Sacramento, California, and a significant number of the participants, of over 500 participants in this

re-ride, are farmers and ranchers who own land along the trail.

For example, in western Utah three generations of the David

Bagley family ride and carry the mail at Willow Springs Ranch in

Callao, Utah, where there stands the remains of an original Pony

Express station. They pass the mail to Rex Claridge, owner of Six

Mile Ranch a little bit further to the west. Out in Nebraska, farmers like Scott Wolf and Leonard Hilton and many others are leaders within the Association. They and others have been known to literally shut off the tractor, saddle a horse to take part in the reride, then put up the horse and return to the tractor, and these examples are repeated up and down the trail during our re-ride in

47

the month of June. The Pony Express National Historic Trail is

and should be a source of pride to those who work and live on the

land where the history was made.

Finally, I would like to remind you of the critical importance of

preserving our heritage through vehicles such as the National Historic Trails. In an increasingly hectic and fast-paced world, there

is a need and a yearning to connect with simpler times. This connection can be found on the trails of our pioneer forebears.

Many young people in our society seem to lack a sense of where

they belong in the world in terms of time and place, and some turn

to violent and self-destructive behavior in their search for identity.

The historic trails can offer them an opportunity to learn through

experience and feeling what has gone before, and hopefully help

them to gain an understanding of who they are and where they are

going.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak today. I also

respectfully request your favorable consideration for H.R. 37, to

preserve and to protect these National Historic Trails.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hearty follows:]

Statement of Patrick Hearty, National Trails Committee Chair,

National Pony Express Association, Inc.,on H.R. 37

Chairman Hefley and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on

National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, I am grateful for the opportunity to

testify in favor of H.R. 37, a bill which would amend the National Trails System

Act to allow an update of the feasibility and suitability studies of four long distance

National Historic Trails, providing for possible additions to these trails. The

National Pony Express Association is pleased to support this legislation.

H.R. 37 would allow study of the feasibility and suitability of additional routes

and variants of the four long distance National Historic Trails administered by the

National Park Service Long Distance Trails Office in Salt Lake City, Utah. The

trails affected are the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express

National Historic Trails. The effect of this legislation would be to provide the Secretary of the Interior with information regarding the appropriateness of inclusion

of additional routes and cutoffs as part of the officially designated National Historic

Trails.

The origins of the problems with these trails as presently designated have been

documented elsewhere and will not be reiterated here (see the testimony of Jere L.

Krakow, Superintendent of the NPS Long Distance Trails Office). I would first like

to discuss the commitment of the National Pony Express Association to commemoration and marking of the Pony Express National Historic Trail, and to the promulgation of the history of the great enterprise we know as the Pony Express.

The National Pony Express Association (NPEA) was incorporated in California in

1978, ‘‘organized for the perpetuation and recognition of the historical running of

the Pony Express.’’ Our major activity each year is a horseback re-enactment of the

Pony Express, wherein a leather mail pouch, or ‘‘mochila,’’ is relayed over approximately 2000 miles between St. Joseph, MO, and Sacramento, CA. Participants come

primarily from the eight states crossed by the Pony Express Trail, but also include

members who reside in other states and several foreign countries. Each state division also participates locally in parades and fairs, provides programs for school and

civic groups, and is engaged in maintenance and marking projects on the trail itself.

NPEA has received national and international recognition while carrying U.S.

mail on horseback around a highway-closing mudslide in American River Canyon,

CA, in 1983, and while participating in the Olympic Torch Relay in Colorado,

Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri, prior to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, GA. Our members have been invited to ride in the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, CA, and in the ‘‘We the People’’ Parade in Philadelphia, PA, in

1986. We have enjoyed numerous other high-profile opportunities to share our pride

in the history and heritage of the American West.

During the year 2000, NPEA members donated over 25,000 volunteer hours, valued at over $350,000, and traveled more than 204,000 miles in support of the Pony

Express National Historic Trail. This volunteer effort, valued at more than

48

$411,000, comes from an organization of approximately 800 members, having an

annual operating budget of $14,000. This time and effort are directed toward a wide

variety of projects, such as trail construction and clearance of storm damage in California, marking the National Historic Trail across portions of Nevada, and delivery

of Christmas cards by Pony Express to hospitalized children in Utah. Assistance

with interpretive displays is being provided for the Trails Interpretive Center in

Casper, WY, and for the Platte River Arch in Nebraska. In Julesburg, CO, a new

bronze statue honoring the riders of the Pony Express is being built. Trail marking

and scholarship programs in Kansas, and educational initiatives in Missouri are

helping the public to enjoy the story of the Pony Express, and to know where significant events took place.

The National Pony Express Association works closely with our Federal partners,

the National Park Service, which has administrative responsibility for the Trail, and

the Bureau of Land Management and National Forest Service, whose lands contain

major portions of the Trail in the western states. The association has cooperative

agreements and memoranda of understanding with the BLM and the Forest Service,

covering our activities on public lands under their jurisdiction. Park Service Challenge Cost Share Grants are being used for projects in several states, the largest

being a $13,600 grant to our California Division to help build a bridge and otherwise improve public access to the Pony Express Trail. We are extremely grateful for

the work done by dedicated employees of these agencies, and we are proud to be

the primary volunteer organization with whom they work on matters pertaining to

the Pony Express National Historic Trail.

The NPEA also strives to maintain an excellent rapport with ranchers and local

land owners whose lands are crossed by the Pony Express Trail. The 1992 legislation authorizing the Pony Express National Historic Trail leaves all private property

rights firmly in the hands of the land owners. Sites and trial segments may be certified and recognized by the National Park Service, at the request of the landowner,

but such certification provides no guarantee of access to the general public, or to

members of the managing agencies or volunteer groups. All decisions regarding access, trail marking, interpretation, etc., are left to the owner. A number of our members and re-ride participants are, however, ranchers and farmers who are proud to

commemorate the important historic events which crossed their land. Examples include Gary Barker, who serves as ride captain in Wyoming, leading a group of riders across his family ranch on Yellow Creek, south of Evanston, WY. Three generations of the Anderson family, owners of Willow Springs Ranch in western Utah, take

part in the re-ride, and offer hospitality and a tour of a Pony Express station to

members during the annual re-enactment. Near Seneca, Kansas, a Pony Express silhouette is being placed on property owned be Robert Runback. Many, many other

examples exist of ranch families and land owners to whom NPEA activities offer an

opportunity to show their pride in their heritage.

It is my hope that the preceding description of the dedication and depth of involvement of the members of the National Pony Express Association will help you

to understand how highly we value our National Historic Trails. Federal dollars invested in the historic trails are leveraged many times over by volunteer groups such

as NPEA. Your support of H.R. 37, as well as other legislation and initiatives benefiting our historic trails makes our effort seem worthwhile.

I have also been asked to speak on the importance of H.R. 37 to the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail. I hope that my status as a native Utahn, and past

chairman of the Utah Historic Trails Consortium will serve as adequate credentials.

Information for this testimony has been provided by the Mormon Trails Association

in Utah, and by the Iowa Mormon Trails Association.

The Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail, as authorized in 1978, recognizes

only the 1846–47 route followed by Brigham Young’s group, known as the Vanguard

Company. In the subsequent years prior to 1869, when the railroad was completed,

a number of other routes were followed by Mormon emigrants on their way to Utah

Territory. Most of those leaving Nauvoo in later companies traveled across Iowa on

trails well north of Brigham Young’s ‘‘Vanguard’’ route. Another significant example,

also found in Iowa., is the route followed by the ‘‘Handcart Pioneers.’’ A total of

2,962 people traveled west using handcarts, most in the years 1856 and 1857. In

the words of Loren Horton of the Iowa Mormon Trails Association, ‘‘The significance

of this number of people making a journey of that distance using such equipment

is unparalleled in the history of the frontier development in the United States.—

In the years 1864–67, approximately 6500 westbound Mormon emigrants used

what is called the ‘‘Nebraska City Cutoff’’ across eastern Nebraska, as they left the

Missouri River to begin the westward trek. In central Wyoming in the late 1860’s

Mormon pioneers traveled on a portion of the Cherokee Trail. On their final approach to Great Salt Lake City, many followed Parley P. Pratt’s ‘‘Golden Pass

49

Road,’’ roughly along the route of modern-day Interstate 80. For details of the trail

routes proposed for further study, please refer to Maps A and B, provided by the

National Park Service. A complete listing of Mormon emigrant routes traveled, and

frequency of use has been compiled by Mormon Trail scholar Ron Andersen.

Most of the Mormon Trail cut-offs and variants proposed for further study were

also used by Oregon and California bound pioneers. Some are already designated

as portions of the California National Historic Trail. It is important that these

shared routes receive recognition as part of each National Historic Trail to which

they pertain, so that a more complete story of the westward migration can be told

along the trails. Inclusion of the appropriate shared routes will not add massive

numbers of miles to the trails. It will add greatly to the ability of the Federal managers and volunteer groups to provide the public with a more full an accurate picture of the opening of the West.

As with NPEA, the Mormon Trails Associations contribute massively to the trails.

The estimated contributions to the Mormon Pioneer Trail for the year 2000 were

35,350 hours, 106,500 miles traveled, and out of pocket expenses of $26,700. The

total value of these contributions is calculated at over $553,000. Once again, the federal dollars allocated for the National Historic Trails are matched many times over

by the efforts of dedicated volunteers who work closely with the federal partners in

support of the trails.

As has been explained regarding the Pony Express Trail, authorization of additional segments of the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail will have no

undesired effect on private lands. Land owners will have complete control over visitation and access. No wording regarding condemnation of private property is contained in the original 1978 authorizing legislation, and none is sought in the current

bill.

The stories of the trails tell the history of the westward expansion of our nation

in the nineteenth century, of reaching out to grasp the ‘‘manifest destiny’’ foreseen

by the founding fathers. The stories of adventure, the tales of sacrifice and hardship, need to be remembered and retold, as do the stories of injustices and broken

promises. There are lessons for each of us in the chronicles of those times. The public today seems to have an unprecedented interest in trail history. In the fast-paced

world in which we live, there exists a great yearning to connect with a simpler time.

There is also a great desire to learn of our ancestors, to know where they traveled,

what they did and what they built. We can follow the trails they followed, and

maybe see some of the things they saw, maybe know some of the feelings they felt.

These opportunities must be preserved for the future.

Perhaps the paramount reason for preserving the trails and their history lies with

the youth. Too many young people in our society grow up with no sense of who they

are, or where they fit in terms of time and place. They seek to compensate for their

lack of direction by indulgence in violent or self destructive behavior. Connecting

with Historic Trails could help young people to see history as a story on the land,

rather than merely a list of dates and places in a book. By finding out where they

come from, they may begin to grasp a sense of who the are and where they are

going.

Once again, I respectfully request your favorable consideration for H.R. 37. Our

lives and those of our posterity will be immeasurably enriched by the preservation

of the National Historic Trails. Thank You.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Hearty.

Mr. Berger, on a different subject.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BERGER, CHAIRMAN,

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY

Mr. BERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, for allowing me to address H.R. 640, which is a bill to extend

the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. I have personally worked in the—well, I am the Chair of the Santa Monica

Mountains Conservancy, and I have worked over 15 years with

open space recreation and education issues in the southern California area. I have lived there 31 years, but I have been directly

involved with this type of thing for the last 15-plus.

50

I feel this addition to the National Recreation area is important

because, one, the wildlife corridor issue. In the early 1990’s this

wildlife corridor concept became known. The connection of this area

of the Santa Monica Mountains to an area called the Simi Hills is

critical for major mammal populations, and then the Simi Hills go

on and connect with the Angeles National Forest and the Las Padres National Forest, which are rather large national forest areas

which allow for biological diversity. So that becomes rather critical

for things like bobcats, mountain lions. They need to get a little different genes in there.

It is the watershed of the Malibu Creek, which is within that

Santa Monica Mountains zone. This bill would also allow private

landowners in the area to work more closely with the National

Park Service. And then it would also provide access for residents

of Los Angeles and Ventura County for hiking, biking and equestrian trails. Even though we live in a very urban area, we have

horses, and so they are out on the trails quite commonly.

I would like to point out that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy does not hold land. We buy land and give it to other agencies. For example, we have transferred Zuma Canyon, Circle X

Ranch, Peter Strauss Ranch, also called Lake Incantanto, Palo

Comadal Canyon, those have all been transferred to the National

Park Service through the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has acquired the land

in question, as far as the land we that we own, with the purpose,

the intent of transferring it over to another agency. We like to

transfer them to agencies that know how to run them. In other

words, our job is to buy them, buy the land, and then we find the

person or the group that can best run that land.

So H.R. 640 would enable the legal boundaries to reflect the true

topographical and biological boundaries in that area, and I would

ask your support, and thank you for letting me speak on it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berger follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Michael Berger, Chairperson, Santa Monica

Mountains Conservancy, on H.R. 640

Chairman Hefley and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Michael Berger, I have the honor to chair the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; my appointing authority to the Conservancy is the Ventura

County Board of Supervisors. I also serve as an elected director of the Conejo Recreation and Park District which serves the greater Thousand Oaks community in Ventura County, and I am a member and the immediate past chair of the Mountains

Recreation and Conservation Authority, a joint powers agency comprised of the

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Conejo and Rancho Simi recreation

and park districts. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, although

a separate legal entity, functions as the operations arm of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and when referring to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

in this testimony such reference will be inclusive of the Authority as well.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is the principal agency of the State of

California charged with the protection of the natural resources of the Santa Monica

Mountains Zone. Since its establishment in 1980, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has acquired almost 50,000 acres of public open space and parkland in the

Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding mountain ranges in Los Angeles and

Ventura Counties. Under California law, the Conservancy succeeds to and is vested

with the responsibility previously vested in the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission for the maintenance and enforcement of the Santa

Monica Mountains Comprehensive Plan that was prepared pursuant to Section

507(n) of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

51

We are pleased to appear before you today in support of H.R. 640, the Santa

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act. This

measure would expand the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA by the

addition of the ‘‘Wildlife Corridor Expansion Zone’’ consisting of the Liberty Canyon

wildlife corridor at its critical transition between the Simi Hills and the Santa

Monica Mountains and the headwaters of Las Virgenes Creek in the Simi Hills. All

of these areas are within the larger watershed of Malibu Creek within the Santa

Monica Mountains Zone as identified in the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Plan.

The addition of the ‘‘Wildlife Corridor Expansion Zone’’ is a necessary expansion

of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA boundary to take into consideration the scientific knowledge we have gained since the SMMNRA legislation was first enacted

in 1978.

In the early 1990’s two studies were conducted of the biological interrelationships

between the Santa Monica Mountains ecosystem and the adjacent mountain ranges

to the north. The work of Dr. Michael Soule ́, one of the founders of conservation

biology in this country, done for the National Park Service, and a study done by

Paul Edelman for the Nature Conservancy conclusively showed that the Santa

Monica Mountains are a part of a much larger regional ecosystem consisting not

only of the Santa Monica Mountains, but also of the Simi Hills, the Santa Susana

Mountains, and ultimately leading into the great ‘‘genetic reservoirs’’ of protected

land in the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests. The original boundary of the

SMMNRA acknowledged this connectivity by extending the NRA north of the Ventura Freeway (US 101) to encompass Palo Comado and Cheesebro Canyons. The

Soule ́ and Edelman studies demonstrated that the actual connectivity between the

Simi Hills and Santa Monica Mountains ecosystems was best achieved in Liberty

Canyon and in the upper Las Virgenes Creek watershed.

These scientific findings motivated a land acquisition policy by the Santa Monica

Mountains Conservancy that emphasized protection of the Liberty Canyon wildlife

corridor and upper Las Virgenes Canyon to the extent of acquiring more than 3,330

acres by purchase or dedication since 1991. Starting with the Liberty Canyon purchase of over 400 acres, greatly added by the Ahmanson Ranch dedication of over

2600 acres in the upper Las Virgenes Creek watershed, and finally culminating in

acquisition of the connecting properties between Malibu Creek State Park and the

Liberty Canyon ownership north of the Ventura Freeway (U.S. Highway 101). The

most recent of these acquisitions, the 106 acre Abrams parcel, was just dedicated

last month in a ceremony that recognized the great cooperation between all levels

of government that characterizes the Santa Monica Mountains NRA. The Abrams

property is the key connection between the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills,

the narrow point in the hour glass, if you will, between these two ecosystems. It

was acquired by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy using funds provided by

the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts as part of a landfill permit mitigation

required by the National Park Service.

Unfortunately, although forming an indispensable connection between the Simi

Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains, this wildlife corridor is outside the boundary

of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area. H.R. 640 would remedy this situation.

H.R. 640 provides that land within the Wildlife Corridor Expansion Zone can be

acquired by the National Park Service only by donation or expenditure of donated

funds. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has a long history of land transfers to the National Park Service. Indeed, some of the most beautiful portions of the

National Recreation Area—including Zuma Canyon, Circle X Ranch, Peter Strauss

Ranch, even Palo Comado Canyon itself—were transactions where the Santa Monica

Mountains Conservancy had first acquired the property.

The Conservancy expects to continue this policy upon enactment of H.R. 640. The

Liberty Canyon parcels, both north and south of Highway 101 would be donated to

the park service immediately upon request. The upper Las Virgenes Creek watershed (Ahmanson Ranch dedication) would be transferred at an appropriate time

once the Conservancy’s continued responsibilities with respect to this property have

been fulfilled.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 640 is an important piece of legislation. At this stage in the

history of the SMMNRA, nothing is more important than establishing legal boundaries for the Recreation Area that reflect the true topographical and biological relationships that define this unique unit of the National Park System.

I am happy to respond to any questions the subcommittee may have.

52

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. I am particularly impressed

with the quality of testimony of all of you. You are very helpful to

our deliberations on this.

Let me ask, do you have any questions?

Mr. SOUDER. May I make a brief comment?

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, go right ahead.

Mr. SOUDER. I am anxious to learn more about the Santa Monica

area. That is part of the Ronald Reagan Museum Trail from the

museum to the coast, which those of us who are Reagan fans have

done a number of times, including me. So I know it is a very beautiful area, and I think it would make a great addition, and look forward to working with you on that.

I wanted to express a reservation and then hear a comment on

the national trails question, because in looking at the map we were

provided, and I am a history buff but I also admit to, like many

other history buffs, liking to see, preferring to see history in a more

simplistic version than all the different cutoffs going every which

direction.

And I think that a lot of the concept of the Oregon Trail, the

Mormon Trail, the Santa Fe Trail and so on, is that there was a

clear, basic path that was different than what we saw in the Midwest and East. And when you start adding tons of cutoffs to that,

that were comparatively minor compared to the major trail, and

don’t have some kind of a clear statement in it that differentiates

the central trail from the cutoffs, you have less that a compelling

case of why that trail is nationally significant.

For example, my family was Amish. My great-great, probably

great grandfather was one of the first Amish settlers in Indiana in

1846, and there was a distinct pattern of how they moved from

Philadelphia, Lancaster, to north Pennsylvania, to Ohio, and up to

the northwest part, and then Indiana, and they walked it. But of

course other immigrant groups in Indiana followed other trails.

New Jersey, you could do all kinds of cutoffs depending on what

groups came in and how they went to different areas. And we literally, almost every road in America at one point was a trail or a

cutoff to a trail where somebody said, ‘‘Let’s go form this town.’’

Sometimes it was walking, sometimes it was horseback, sometimes

it was canal, sometimes it was railroad, later auto. And in reality

our highways are modern forms of trails.

Were you proposing a system that would make, in this study, a

very clear differentiation between what is a main trail and a cutoff,

or are you saying that the cutoffs were used almost as frequently

as the main trail, which in my opinion would undermine the concept of the Pony Express, Oregon, Mormon Trails?

Mr. WATSON. First of all, we recognize that not every proposed

route may meet the standards of the Park Service and qualify for

addition. What happened was, when the California Trail was initially studied, the assumption was that there was almost no marking of the trail, no remnants left, until you reached about Casper,

Wyoming. Our 4,200 members have proved, they have found traces,

they have found river crossings that were heavily used, and that

is what we are asking to study.

Furthermore, we have, if I might for just a moment, we have a

census of immigrant documents that has been built by our memVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:32 Jan 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71929.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
53

bers. It has 2,200, I think it is, documents in it, diaries,

reminiscences, with 65,000 names of immigrants that crossed, but

it makes reference to points on the trail. And this material will be

used to help substantiate the need for adding these routes.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, I would ask for the record that we certainly

sustain the concept of the primary and the secondary. Santa Fe

clearly had a split, Bent’s Fort and the Cimmaron Cutoff, but what

I see in that drawing is so much proliferation as almost to obscure

the concept of a primary trail, and I think that we need to make

sure we do that when we work through the trail system.

Thank you very much for your interesting testimony from all of

you today.

Mr. HEARTY. And if I can offer a little clarification, as I think

Jeanne already mentioned, many of these routes are already designated as California National Historic Trail where they were also

used by Mormon pioneers and also used by Oregon-bound emigrants, and this will largely allow us to tell a more complete story,

to say that there was more than just—that other people were on

that trail, other than just the California-bound group.

Mrs. WATSON. And part of the reason for H.R. 37, to allow a

study, is to prove or disprove which were routes that were used by

a large number of pioneers and which may have been only used 1

year by 10 wagons. Nobody is saying that every one of these routes

will qualify, but that we need to study them to make sure we tell

the complete story of the westward movement.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much for those comments. Let me

ask, I know that a lot of these trails are designated by a sign on

the highway and so forth. Through southern Colorado, the Santa

Fe Trail is like that in a lot of places. But is it your goal to open

up as many of these as possible to actually trails again, to make

them trails that people can enjoy? Is that the goal?

Mrs. WATSON. We don’t build trails like the scenic trails can do.

We walk in the ruts and mark the ruts. And in the national forest

in California, up in the Amador Ranger District, our family has

spent 30 years clearing brush, marking trail, working with friends,

families and volunteers, including volunteers from the Kirkwood

Mountain Ski Resort, to identify the trail.

In fact, this year they have just put up Burma Shave style labels

on the ski lift, so skiers will know that they are crossing the trail,

and there will be a run called Emigrant Trail where they can ski

in winter on top of the snow. Our problem at this point is, how do

you mark that area above the tree line?

But these trails do exist. We are not going to be building trail.

If it doesn’t exist, there is a gap in it, and that is usually where

you pick it up on the highway and go to the next access spot,

whether it is a visitor’s center, a kiosk, a private landowner letting

you on, or a national forest or BLM land. And you can actually

walk in pioneer ruts.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. For this corridor that you testified

about, Mr. Berger, is it your contention also that there is no opposition out there to doing this—cities, counties, people?

Mr. BERGER. I have heard no opposition. Fran Pavley, who is a

State Assembly person, used to—I am a school principal—she used

to be a teacher under me, and she has expressed support of this,

54

and she was mayor of the City of Agoura, which is in this area,

and she has not heard of any complaints that I know of, either. I

have heard no complaints on this. It allows them to work more

closely with the National Park Service. A good relationship there,

very good relationship.

Mr. HEFLEY. Any other questions or comments?

Well, we appreciate the testimony. The Watsons, we appreciate

your family for doing this. Private people who are interested in

maintaining our history I think is very, very important.

My great-grandfather was in the Civil War in the Fourth Illinois

Cavalry, I believe it was, and was captured early in the war. And

that was the time when they traded prisoners back but then you

couldn’t fight anymore, so since he couldn’t fight anymore, he went

to California, and I would be interested to know which of these

trails he followed to California.

But in the process he was walking behind the wagons—I have

never known exactly why my family couldn’t afford a horse—but he

was walking behind the wagons, and the wagon turned up a knife.

And it was with a bone handle, and it was a knife, and that is still

in the family. It was used down through the years with the family,

and now I have that knife, which I cherish.

And I look at it, and you wish that knife could talk to you. Who

owned that knife before our family got hold of it? It would be

wonderful to know, and I guess there is no way we will ever know

because I don’t think there was any written history kept of it, as

to how he got to California, but he did. So I am very interested in

what you all do.

Yes, Mr. Watson?

Mr. WATSON. If we could, if we can get that name, we will run

a search of our computer database, and it can turn up names and

then gives information on where. Because one of the things that

happened—see, we have roughly 2,200 diaries, etcetera, but they

mention 65,000 names because they say, ‘‘Well, we were camped

next to,’’ or what have you. So if we can get your ancestor’s name,

we will get a quick scan made.

Mr. HEFLEY. I had no idea, and we will do that. I would love for

you to do that. That would be very, very interesting.

Well, thank you very much. If there are no further questions, if

I can find a hammer here to be official, the Committee stands

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ