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

74-087 PS 2002

H.R. 1456 and H.R. 1814

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

July 24, 2001

Serial No. 107-52

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 July 24, 2001 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Goode, Hon. Virgil H., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 1456 ........................................................... 3

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

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

of Connecticut ................................................................................................ 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 39

Maloney, Hon. James H., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut ................................................................................................ 40

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 41

Neal, Hon. Richard E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 42

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 43

Olver, Hon. John W., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 6

Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 1814 ...................................... 8

Statement of Witnesses:

Brady, Peg, Director of Conservation Programs, Appalachian Mountain

Club, Boston, Massachusetts ....................................................................... 66

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 68

Colson, Ann T., Director of Volunteers and Trails Coordinator,

Connecticut Forest and Park Association, Rockfall, Connecticut ............. 69

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 72

Galvin, Denis, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Washington, DC ................................................................. 53

Prepared statement on H.R. 1456 ........................................................... 56

Prepared statement on H.R. 1814 ........................................................... 56

Johnson, Florella H., Associate Superintendent, Franklin County Schools,

Rocky Mount, Virginia .................................................................................. 59

Prepared statement on H.R. 1456 ........................................................... 62

Additional materials supplied:

Collins, Kevin, Acting Director, Conservation Policy, National Parks

Conservation Association, Washington, DC, Letter submitted for the

record on H.R. 1456 ..................................................................................... 81

(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 1456, TO EXPAND THE

BOUNDARY OF THE BOOKER T.

WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1814, TO

AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

ACT TO DESIGNATE THE METACOMETMONADNOCK-SUNAPEE-MATTABESETT

TRAIL EXTENDING THROUGH WESTERN

NEW HAMPSHIRE, WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS AND CENTRAL CONNECTICUT FOR

STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

Tuesday, July 24, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room

1324, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley [Chairman

of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, CHAIRMAN,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND

PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come to order.

Good morning. Welcome to the hearing today.

This morning, the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on two bills, H.R. 1456 and

H.R. 1814.

H.R. 1456, introduced by Congressman Virgil Goode from Virginia, would expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument in southwestern Virginia through the purchase of

15 acres adjacent to the existing monument.

Mr. HEFLEY. H.R. 1814 was introduced by Congressman John

Olver of Massachusetts. This bill would amend the National Trails

System Act to designate the Metacomet-Monadnock-SunapeeMattabesett trail extending through western New Hampshire,

2

western Massachusetts, and central Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Trails System.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Olver, is there anyway we could name that the

Olver-Hefley Trail and just—

[Laughter.]

Mr. OLVER. Well, it all lies within the Silvio Conte Fish and

Wildlife Refuge, so it might be appropriately the Conte Trail, if you

would prefer.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. Whatever. We need to do that or get a smarter

Chairman who can pronounce the name better.

[Laughter.]

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressmen Goode and Olver be permitted to sit at the dais, following

their statements, if they would like to. And you are welcome to do

that. Without objection, so ordered.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify

on these bills.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on

National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 1456 and H.R. 1814

Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the Subcommittee

on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony on two bills—

H.R. 1456 and H.R. 1814.

H.R. 1456, introduced by Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia, would expand

the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument in southwestern Virginia through the purchase of fifteen acres adjacent to the existing monument.

H.R. 1814 was introduced by Congressman John Olver of Massachusetts. This bill

would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Met-a-comet - Manad-nock Sen-a-pee - Matt-a-be-sit Trail extending through western New Hampshire, western Massachusetts, and central Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Trails System.

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressmen Goode and

Olver be permitted to sit on the dias following their statements. Without objection,

so ordered.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify on these

bills and now turn to the Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen.

Mr. HEFLEY. And I wonder, Mr. McGovern, do you have any comments you would like to make?

Well, then let’s go ahead with the witnesses, beginning with Virgil.

Mr. Goode, would you like to start?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VIRGIL GOODE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

VIRGINIA

Mr. GOODE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you, your Committee, and your staff for all of

the courtesy and kindness that you have extended to us in preparing for this hearing.

We are here today on behalf of H.R. 1456. H.R. 1456 would expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument located in Hardy, Virginia.

3

That is the county of Franklin. I am a native and lifelong resident of Franklin County, and I have personal knowledge and familiarity with the monument and the surrounding area.

I can attest to the rapid growth that the area has experienced

over the past few years. Ten years ago, there was no stoplight in

the vicinity of Booker T. Washington National Monument. Now,

less than a half mile down the road, there is a stoplight.

In the last 6 months, we have seen a huge building-supply store

go up. And the growth and development on Smith Mountain Lake

is going to engulf Booker T. Washington National Monument.

And the addition of 15 acres would help preserve the quality of

the Booker T. Washington National Monument and preserve it for

future generations.

The 15 acres adjacent to the monument has been put up for sale

by the owner, and we have the desire to maintain the rural, pastoral character of the Booker T. Washington National Monument

and to prevent the adjacent property from being developed.

This bill would facilitate the expansion of the monument boundary and the purchase of this property by the National Park Service.

We will hear from others testifying today that Booker T. Washington National Monument is a wonderful national memorial to

Booker T. Washington. The 224-acre park is comprised of rolling

hills, woodlands, fields, the Burroughs house, the Big House, the

two slave cabin sites.

The park portrays what Booker T. Washington’s rural life on a

small tobacco farm was like, and the rural character is critical to

the park’s interpretation of his life as an enslaved child during the

Civil War.

It also is important to note that seven of the 15 acres, which this

legislation would expand to include, were part of the original farm.

And I hope that we can maintain the rural character of Booker

T. Washington National Monument, and I hope that it will be the

pleasure of this Committee to favorably report H.R. 1456.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goode follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr. a Representative in

Congress from the State of Virginia, on H.R. 1456

Dear Mr. Chairman:

First, let me thank you and all of the members of the subcommittee for having

a hearing on H.R. 1456 and for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of

the bill.

H.R. 1456 would expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National

Monument located in Hardy, Virginia in Franklin County, Virginia. I am a native

and life-long resident of Franklin County, so I have some personal knowledge and

familiarity with the monument and the surrounding area. I can attest to the rapid

growth that this area has experienced over the past few years. The proximity of the

monument to Smith Mountain Lake poses a real threat to the character and pastoral nature of the Booker T. Washington National Monument.

Smith Mountain Lake is a rapidly growing area. It is a popular place for new

homes, vacationers, boaters, fishermen and the like. The increase in residents and

visitors brings increased development, business, and traffic. As pictures taken from

the boundary of the monument show, development is already within sight of the

property.

A parcel of land, totaling 15 acres, adjacent to the monument has been put up

for sale by the owner. Due to the desire to maintain the rural, pastoral character

of the Booker T. Washington National Monument and to prevent the adjacent property from being developed, I introduced H.R. 1456 to facilitate the expansion of the

4

monument boundary and the purchase of this property by the National Park Service.

As we will hear/have heard from others testifying today, the Booker T. Washington National Monument is a wonderful national memorial to Booker T. Washington. The 224 acre park is comprised of rolling hills, woodlands, fields, the Burrough’s house, or ‘‘Big House,’’ and two slave cabin sites. The park portrays what

Washington’s rural life on a small tobacco farm was like and the rural character

is critical to the park’s interpretation of his life as an enslaved child during the Civil

War. It is also important to note that seven of the 15 acres that this legislation

would expand the park to include, were part of the original farm.

I hope that we can maintain the rural character of the Booker T. Washington National Monument. I believe that this is a worthwhile endeavor for the National Park

Service and I hope that you will show this legislation favorable consideration.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Virgil.

Mr. Olver?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN OLVER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MASSACHUSETTS

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

And I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to appear before the Committee.

I am here to ask for your support on H.R. 1814, a bill to study

the feasibility of establishing a Monadnock-Sunapee greenway, the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail, the Metacomet Trail, and the

Mattabesett Trail, and additional potential trails as a 250-mile National Scenic Trail from the Long Island Sound to a junction with

Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire.

Let me begin by thanking the folks on the ground, the many volunteers and paid staff of the trail groups in New England who

have worked hard to support this bipartisan bill, which is sponsored by every Member who has part of the proposed trail in his

or her district.

In Massachusetts, I want to thank particularly members of the

Berkshire chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club, including

Pat Fletcher, Pete Westover, and Chris Ryan.

In Connecticut, I want to thank the Connecticut Forest and

Parks Association; Ann Colson, who is here with us today and will

speak later; and Patty Pendergast; as well as other members of the

association who have worked tirelessly to bring key stakeholders

together for this study.

Without people like Ann and Patty and Pat and Pete and Chris,

we would never have the recreational opportunities available to us

today.

In New Hampshire, our colleague Mr. Bass is also leading the

way, and I thank him for his support.

With your help and with the Committee’s help, I am hopeful that

the feasibility study will be conducted and will involve the maintaining clubs and associations, as they will be key to eventual success.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to conduct a study to

determine the suitability for inclusion in the National Trails System of this 260-mile extended trail.

And I have a whole series of letters, which I will present to you.

There are about 30 of them from conservation groups, from state

5

and municipal officials, and from some individuals along the length

of the trail in support of it.

I have hiked every mile of the proposed trail in Massachusetts.

And while some segments are well-protected, others are subject to

serious encroachment.

In my district, local trail groups, land trusts, and conservation

organizations are excited and supportive of the study, and they

look forward to working with the National Park Service.

I have a map which I have put together, and I would ask your

indulgence, because I think it is easier if I bring it forward and

show you some of the key features of this.

This shows where the Appalachian Trail itself comes through

from Pennsylvania, New York, just touches the very northeastern

corner of Connecticut, and then crosses catty-corner and goes off in

a northeasterly direction to Mount Katahdin in Maine.

And then these series of trails, the Mattabesett is here. The

Metacomet-Monadnock goes from Meriden, Connecticut, all the way

through Connecticut, up through Massachusetts, to Mount Monadnock in New Hampshire. And then the Monadnock-Mount Sunapee

connection goes to within about 25 crow-fly miles of connection

with the Appalachian Trail.

And there is an additional New Hampshire state park, Cardigan

State Park, with a lovely mountain with exceptionally good views

that is only 6 miles from the Appalachian Trail.

The northern portion of this is a series of Monadnocks. Monadnocks are isolated peaks left from glaciation, from the major ice

ages, where the glaciers scoop large amounts of earth. And the top

of Mount Monadnock, the last most of 1,000 feet, is rock with extensive slickensides showing in various places on the mountain. It

is a very interesting geological feature.

Monadnock is over 3,000 feet high. It is 2,500 feet above the valley floors of the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers to the east and

to the west.

Mount Cardigan in the area, the feasibility would ask whether

it can reach the Appalachian Trail, is also in Monadnock. There are

several mountains down to a section, to a point about here in the

lower southern part of Massachusetts, where almost the whole rest

of this, all of the named trails and the established trails, are on a

volcanic basalt ridge, which was created 250 million years ago, all

of it. And it shows in the pictures here, until one gets down to the

southern end of the Mattabesett Trail, which is only 6 crow-fly

miles from Long Island Sound.

So at the Long Island Sound, just a few miles east, if you can

reach it, if it is feasible to do so, within a few miles of New Haven.

It passes through the metropolitan areas of Hartford, with Meriden

and New Britain, the major cities in Connecticut, in this area. And

then it passes right through the western metropolitan area, the

Springfield-Holyoke-Chicopee metropolitan area, with about a

quarter of the population to the north and west of the trail, which

is, at that range, about 1,000 feet above the valley floor and very

sharply delineated by the kind of geology.

And then on through New Hampshire on the Monadnocks.

6

And I have this series of pictures. This shows part of the 360-

degree view. Quite spectacular. From Sunapee, from Monadnock,

which I have described.

Grand Monadnock is a mountain. Probably has the largest number of people climbing that mountain of any mountain of any significant size in the United States. Every year, hundreds of

thousands of people make it up Mount Monadnock. And the skyline

of Boston is visible 60 miles away from there.

And these are views, again, from Erving, Massachusetts, showing

the top of the basalt ridge, which is quite sharply delineated, quite

sharp escarpment on the north and west side of that whole ridge.

This is a view from Mount Tom, just west of Holyoke, and the

view westward over to the small city of Easthampton, again showing the nature of the basalt rock.

This is the view southward. This you have to imagine. I could see

the skyline of both Springfield, Massachusetts, 150,000, and Hartford, Connecticut, in this picture. You would have to imagine it,

from what shows up in the graininess of the film.

And then these pictures are the southern end of that basalt

ridge, because the basalt ridge goes all the way to very southern

extremity of the Mattabesett Trail, 6 miles from the Long Island

Sound.

And I will leave this, of course, for your perusal, if you wish to

do so.

And I thank you very much for allowing me to go a few minutes

longer with the picture show. And I appreciate very much your consideration. And we have a number of our Member supporters here

to speak on behalf of the proposal.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olver follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John Olver, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Massachusetts, on H.R. 1814

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to appear before you and the Committee. I am here to ask for your support of H.R. 1814,

a bill to study the feasibility of establishing the Monadnock–Sunapee Greenway,

Metacomet–Monadnock Trail, Metacomet Trail, Mattabesett Trail, and additional

potential trails as a 250 mile National Scenic Trail from the Long Island Sound to

a junction with the Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire.

Let me begin by thanking the folks on the ground—the many volunteers and paid

staff of the trail groups in New England who have worked hard to support this bipartisan bill which is sponsored by every Member who has part of the proposed trail

in their district.

In Massachusetts, I want to particularly thank Members of the Berkshire Chapter

of the Appalachian Mountain Club—including Pat Fletcher, Pete Westover, and

Chris Ryan.

In Connecticut I would like to thank the CT Forest and Parks Association. Ann

Colson, who is here with us today, and Patty Pendergast—as well as other members

of the Association have worked tirelessly to bring together key stakeholders of this

study. Without people like Ann and Patty we would never have the recreational opportunities available to us today.

I have here several letters of support which I would like to submit for the record.

In New Hampshire—our colleague Mr. Bass is also leading the way and I thank

him for his support. With your help I am hopeful the feasibility study would be conducted in a manner that involves the maintaining clubs and associations—as they

will be key to our success.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to conduct a study to determine the suitability for inclusion in the National Trails System of this 260-mile extended trail.

I have hiked every mile of the proposed trail in Massachusetts and while some segments are well protected, others are subject to serious encroachment. In my district—local trail groups, land trusts, and conservation organizations are excited and

7

supportive of this study and look forward to working the National Park Service.

Using this map and photos I’d briefly like to orient the Committee and point out

some of the highlights.

The trail could eventually connect here with the Appalachian National Scenic

Trail in New Hampshire. The trail would then largely follow existing trails through

the Monadnock–Sunapee Greenway Trail.

Shown here are:

(1) Mt. Sunapee and

(2) a view from Mt. Monadnock which offers a grand 360 degree view.

The trail would then connect to the Metacomet–Monadnock Trail in

Massachusetts.

Shown here are:

(3) a view from Erving and

(4) a scene from the end of the trap rock ridge

Continuing down through Massachusetts are

(5) a view from Mt. Holyoke and

(6) a view from Mt. Tom

Incidently, I might point out that the Mt. Tom range was recently recognized as

one of only ten of this country’s Last Chance Landscapes.

(7) Still in Massachusetts, this shot shows the CT river and both the cities of

Hartford and Springfield.

Continuing down into the state of Connecticut

(8) This photo shows Castle Craig in Meriden. Castle Craig, a Norman-style tower

overlooks the Elmere Reservoir in Meriden. Hikers on the Metacomet Trail pass the

castle as they hike from East Peak (976 feet) to West Peak (1074 feet).

(9) Also from the Metacomet, two young hikers survey the view of South Mountain and Lamentation Mountain, traprock ridges on the trail.

(10) Finally, this is a view from Bluff Head, North Guilford. On a clear day you

can see Long Island Sound on the horizon, only 6 or 8 miles as the crow flies.

Ideally we hope that the trail could extend down to Long Island Sound.

Mr. Chairman, I know that I am running out of time so I will leave the details

to your expert witnesses. I would just like to quickly say that through this bill I

only hope to provide an opportunity for these groups—these volunteers and dedicated employees—to allow for the possibility to one day establish permanent protection for this treasure and for our country’s citizens to enjoy. Throughout my life I

have enjoyed day hiking, long distance back-packing, and serious mountaineering.

I simply want to help make sure these opportunities—which I have had to pleasure

to enjoy, remain available for future generations.

Thank you

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

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, thank you very much. That was very helpful.

Mrs. Johnson? Nancy?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NANCY JOHNSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for holding this hearing and for hearing us

out.

The Metacomet and Mattabesett trails, part of the 700 miles of

the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System, follow a stunning path up

the center of Connecticut, providing breathtaking views of

Connecticut’s diverse landscape.

From urban centers to atop sheer cliff faces, these trails meander

through the State of Connecticut before joining the Sunapee and

Monadnock trails, which terminate at Mount Monadnock in New

Hampshire.

Unfortunately, these trails are threatened and future generations

may not have the opportunity to hike along these footpaths. Currently only 25 percent of the trail is on publicly held land. The remainder is on private land that depends on the benevolence of

property owners.

Increasing development in formerly marginal areas threatens the

trails. Designation as a National Scenic Trail will enhance protection efforts.

This bill provided funding for a 2-year feasibility study for potential addition to the National Trails System. Yet even with passage

of this bill, these trails will not be able to receive this designated

status for another 10 years. If we do not begin this process immediately, these trails will simply disappear.

This bill is important for all residents of New England. As you

saw from Representative Olver’s maps, an entire trail system from

the Canadian border to Long Island Sound would enable public access from the last of New England’s wildest places to the most

densely populated estuary in the United States.

The trails afford everyone the chance to visit some of the most

beautiful areas in New England. Through footpaths, the public is

afforded a peaceful outdoors experience, away from the harried

urban environment that presses in so closely in this region.

Designation as a National Scenic Trail also ensures that these

beautiful areas receive proper environmental protections. Hiking

along designated footpaths has the least impact of any outdoor recreational experience.

For these reasons, a change in the trail’s designation is the perfect solution to public access and protection along Connecticut’s

Metacomet Traprock Ridge.

This incredible basalt ridge is the only one its kind in the East,

and you have to go west of Wyoming to find similar geographic

structures. The footpaths take the public through incredible natural formations that are rare in our region.

Without protection, this area could face severe environmental

degradation.

In order to complete the last 11 miles to connect the Mattabesett

to the sound, several coastal towns in Connecticut have put a

39

potential trail system into their municipal plans of development

and are actively buying property to create the greenway that will

harbor the Blue-Blazed hiking trail extension to Long Island

Sound.

Forty-six people showed up at a public hearing I held in my district on extremely short notice, demonstrating the great interest

that residents of Connecticut have in protecting these trails. These

interested parties included municipal officials, regional planning

agencies, hikers, land trusts representatives, and other nonprofit

representatives.

In Connecticut, we receive relatively few Federal dollars for

lands. Though I worked for over 16 years with the Appropriations

Committee to complete purchase of the parcels that compose the

Appalachian Trail in the western part of my district, and another

10 years will all of you to get the Farmington River designated a

National Wild and Scenic River, very little Federal activity is actually present in Connecticut.

But because of our past successes, and because we are losing so

much of our open space to development, interest is intense and

high in Federal assistance on this project.

Of course, in Connecticut there are the same concerns with eminent domain and Federal control. But it is through knowledge and

this kind of study that all of the communities get to think through

jointly the benefits of trail protection, and the vitality it will restore to central Connecticut, and the opportunity to all of New England to connect the Canadian border with the Long Island Sound

and the great wildernesses of the Northeast with the urban population centers.

So I thank you for your consideration. I urge your support of

what I consider to be a very sensitive and important bill. And I

thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Connecticut, on H.R. 1814

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing

today, and for your interest in this legislation.

The Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails (part of the 700 mile of the Blue–Blazed

Hiking Trail System) follow a stunning path up the center of Connecticut, providing

breathtaking views of Connecticut’s diverse landscape. From urban centers to atop

sheer cliff faces, these trails meander through the state of Connecticut before joining

the Sunapee and Monadnock trails which terminate at Mount Monadnock in New

Hampshire.

Unfortunately, these trails are threatened and future generations may not have

the opportunity to hike along these foot paths. Currently only 25% of the trail is

on publicly held land. The remainder exists on private land that depends on the benevolence of property owners. Increasing development in formerly marginal areas

threatens the trail. Designation as a National Scenic Trail will enhance protection

efforts.

This bill provides funding for a two year feasibility study for potential addition

to the National Trails System. Yet even with passage of this bill, these trails will

still not be able to receive the elevated status for another ten years. If we do not

begin this process immediately, these trails may disappear.

This bill is important for all of the residents of New England. An entire trail system from the Canadian border to Long Island Sound would enable public access

from the last of New England’s wildest places to the most densely populated estuary

in the United States. The trails afford everyone the chance to visit some of the most

beautiful places in New England. As footpaths, the public is afforded a peaceful outdoors experience away from the harried urban environment.

40

Designation as a National Scenic Trail also ensures that these beautiful areas are

receive proper environmental protections. Hiking along designated footpaths has the

least impact of any outdoor recreational experience. For this reason, a change in the

trail’s designation is the perfect solution to public access and protection along

Connecticut’s Metacomet Traprock Ridge. This incredible basalt ridge is the only

one of its kind in the East—you have to go out west to Wyoming to find similar

geographic structures. The footpaths take the public through incredible natural communities that rare to the region. Without protection, this area could face severe environmental degradation.

In order to complete the last eleven miles to connect the Mattabesett to the

Sound, several coastal towns in Connecticut (Guilford and Killingworth) have put

a potential trail system into their Municipal Plans of Development and are actively

buying property to create the greenway that will harbor the Blue–Blazed Hiking

Trail extension to Long Island Sound. Forty-six people showed up at a hearing I

held in my district on extremely short notice demonstrating the great interest that

the residents of Connecticut have in protecting these trails. These interested parties

included municipal officials, regional planning agencies, hikers, land trusts and

other nonprofits. In Connecticut, because we are losing so much open space to development, concerns about federal assistance and eminent domain do resonate as loudly as they do in other places.

I urge your support for this time sensitive legislation. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Nancy.

Mr. Maloney?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES MALONEY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CONNECTICUT

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairman Hefley and members of the

Committee.

I am here to testify in support of H.R. 1814. And first I want to

thank all of my colleagues from New England, and especially my

partner on this bill, Mr. Olver, for providing leadership on this

issue.

John has been a true champion of the environment and has

worked very, very hard on this legislation.

There are indeed approximately 700 miles of Blue-Blazed hiking

trails in Connecticut. Recently the entire Blue-Blazed system in

Connecticut was designated an official state greenway. That speaks

to the interest of the State of Connecticut in maintaining this trail

system, in expanding it, and enhancing it. And there are people

here from Connecticut who will testify in addition later on in your

hearing this morning.

The center point of these trails is located in my district at the

city of Meriden. Specifically, the Hanging Hills formation and

Mount Lamentation, both in Meriden—which are depicted, by the

way, in Mr. Olver’s photographs that he has presented to the Committee—offer unobstructed views of the Connecticut River and a

terrain of tumbled ledges, brooks, forests, and shallow bogs.

The Metacomet Trail, which was established in 1929, follows a

striking traprock ridge running north from the Hanging Hills of

Meriden to the Massachusetts line for approximately 51 miles. And

you heard that described further this morning. The trail continues

on to Mount Monadnock in New Hampshire.

The southern end of the trail, which also begins in Meriden as

the Mattabesett Trail, was established in 1932, and continues

south for 55 miles.

41

These two trails, the Metacomet and Mattabesett, offer the finest

ridge walking and cliff views in Connecticut and indeed in the eastern United States in many regards.

Combined, these two trails almost completely bisect the state.

The Metacomet and Mattabesett trails not only offer vistas of Long

Island Sound, agricultural land, rolling hills, and the Connecticut

River, but also provide a mostly uninterrupted greenway through

a portion of the state that has seen remarkable growth and urbanization in recent years.

Population density in Connecticut continues to rise, as does the

demand for open recreational spaces. In fact, portions of my congressional district saw the highest level of growth in the entire

state, according the latest census figures.

I have worked hard to ensure that the quality of life of

Connecticut families is not adversely affected by these growth

trends. The designation of these trails as part of the National Scenic Trail system would further that work and guarantee the preservation of this trail system in perpetuity.

With the common goals of protecting open space and providing

recreational opportunities across America, the Federal, state, and

local governments should be working together as indeed they are

in this project.

With the support of the Federal Government, you will be combining Federal effort with state and local efforts already being undertaken on the Blue-Blazed trail system.

This bill is an important step to ensure that this and other opportunities like it across our country are not missed.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize, as Mr. Olver mentioned, that

this legislation has the support of every Member of Congress whose

district is home to a part of this trail system. This remarkable level

of support indicates the importance that communities like Meriden

place not only on this system of trails but also on public protection

of our nation’s most precious open spaces, and certainly evidences

the great support for this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you for consideration of this bill, and I look forward to its

favorable approval by your Committee. Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maloney follows:]

Statement of The Honorable James H. Maloney, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Connecticut

Chairman Hefley, Ranking Member Christensen, Members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 1814, which would

authorize a feasibility study on a very important scenic trail that runs through my

congressional district.

First, I would like to thank my colleague from New England, and partner on this

bill, Mr. Olver for providing leadership on this issue. He has worked very hard to

develop this legislation and has been a real champion in the effort to protect the

scenic, historic, and cultural integrity of our natural environment.

There are approximately 700 miles of Blue–Blazed Hiking Trails in Connecticut.

Recently, the entire Blue–Blazed trail system in Connecticut was designated as an

official state greenway.

The center point of these trails is located in my district at the City of Meriden.

Specifically, the ‘‘Hanging Hills’’ formation and Mt. Lamentation both in Meriden

offer unobscured views of the Connecticut River and a terrain of tumbled ledges,

brooks, forest and shallow bogs. The Metacomet trail, which was established in

1929, follows a striking traprock ridge running north from the ‘‘Hanging Hills’’ of

Meriden to the Massachusetts line for approximately 51 miles. The trail continues

on to Mt. Manodnock in New Hampshire. The southern end of the trail, which also

42

begins in Meriden as the Mattabesett Trail, was established in 1932 and continues

south for 55 miles. These two trails, the Metacomet and the Mattabesett, offer the

finest ridge walking and cliff views in all of Connecticut.

Combined, these two trails almost completely bisect the state. The Metacomet/

Mattabesett Trails not only offers vistas of Long Island Sound, agricultural land,

rolling hills, and the Connecticut River, but also provides a mostly uninterrupted

greenway through a portion of the state that has seen remarkable growth and urbanization in recent years.

Population density in Connecticut continues to rise, as does the demand for open

recreational spaces. In fact, portions of my Congressional District saw the highest

level of growth in the entire state according to the latest census figures. I have

worked hard to ensure that the quality of life of Connecticut families is not adversely affected by these recent growth trends.

The designation of these trails as part of the National Scenic Trails System would

further that work.

With the common goals of protecting open space and providing recreational opportunities across America, the Federal, State and Local governments should be working together. This bill is an important step to ensure that this and other opportunities like it all across our country are not missed.

Lastly, I would like to point out that this legislation has the support of every

Member of Congress whose district is home to a part of this trail system. This remarkable level of support indicates the importance that communities like Meriden

place not only on this system of trails, but also on public protection of all of our

nation’s most precious open spaces.

Thank you for your consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Neal, did you want testify?

Mr. NEAL. Just a couple of comments.

Mr. HEFLEY. Be happy for you to, if you would like.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. NEAL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Olver and I have

such enthusiasm for discussing these trails, because they go to

Connecticut and New Hampshire, is that, as the Massachusetts

legislature currently is drawing the maps in reapportionment, we

think there is an opportunity for the two of us to move into

Connecticut and New Hampshire.

[Laughter.]

And for certain, they are trying hard to put Mr. Meehan in New

Hampshire. I can assure you of that.

[Laughter.]

I do want to thank you. And John Olver has taken the lead on

this, along with Nancy Johnson and Jim Maloney.

But I have had great luck in this process, and I want thank you

and members of the Committee, over the last few years, between

the Blackstone Valley with Mr. McGovern and the QuinebaugShetucket with former Congressman Gejdenson. Two rivers in my

congressional district were designated, with considerable lobbying

by myself and Mrs. Johnson and others, to be Heritage rivers, the

Blackstone and the beautiful Connecticut River as well.

But the truth is that it worked very well. And I think it is to

the credit of this Committee and others who have been advocates

of these programs to ensure that we pay attention to what is our

most, I think, precious resource, the environment.

43

And we extend the opportunity for people to use New England

for passive and active recreation. I would argue that there is not

a more beautiful place that you could ever find in the fall than

New England. And I think calling attention through initiatives like

this is very important.

Tracy Kidder’s remarkable book a few years ago, when he wrote

the best-seller, when he described what Northampton and the Pioneer Valley meant as they looked over the Mount Tom range and

said that one of the reasons that people never leave that area is

because they really come to believe that everything they are ever

going to want is located right there. That is telling testimony, I

think, about how people feel.

And the fact that Democrats and Republicans here, with Mr.

Olver’s leadership, have rallied around this initiative I think

speaks volumes to the way we feel about our home in New England.

The last thing that I would say is that this Committee really has

been very kind to me over 13 years in the House. You have really

done very well by me, Democrats and Republicans, and I am indeed very grateful for the work that you have put forward. And if

you have any questions, I am happy to join in.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neal follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard E. Neal, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Massachusetts, on H.R. 1814

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the

Metacomet–Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts. The legislation which I am supporting here, introduced by my Massachusetts delegation colleague, Mr. Olver,

would allow the National Park Service to examine the 3 existing trails, as well as

opportunities to extend the trail through the remaining 2 gaps.

National scenic trails are those that provide for maximum recreation potential

and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic,

natural or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass. This

trail passes all of these requirements, as a National Park Service study will surely

show.

A section of this trail in my district includes the Holyoke Mountain Range and

is within an hour drive of three-quarters of a million people. Throughout the range,

outcrops open up to many spectacular views of the Connecticut River valley, including the Oxbow, a circular lake formed by flooding caused by an ice jam in 1840

which changed the boundaries of the towns of Northampton and Hadley.

This section of the trail is the site of many historically significant events, including the Shays’ Rebellion. Daniel Shays, warden of the town of Pelham, rounded up

a group of farmers whose farms had fallen into disrepair when they fought in the

Revolution. They rebelled in response to the confiscation of their lands and livestock

in lieu of tax payments. Massachusetts militia were sent to quell their uprising and

Shays’ rebel band hid along the trail in the legendary Horse Caves. These caves can

still be visited today.

The Holyoke Range was created when hardened volcanic lava was uplifted millions of years ago. The range was formed in an East–West direction, even though

every other range in the valley runs North–South. This orientation has caused the

forests of each side of the range to be completely different. The north side resembles

the forests of northern New England with hemlock, white pine, beech and birch. The

south side resembles southern New England with oak, hickory and shrubs of the

heath family. One can travel the Metacomet–Monadnock trail and see the beauty

of both southern and northern New England.

We in Massachusetts have had great success working with the National Park

Service on conservation projects. We have strong grassroots organizations which can

step in and make a National Scenic Trail successful. These groups have had success

along the Connecticut River for many years and are capable of providing the necessary support to a National Scenic Trail. This legislation is formally supported by

conservation groups, the Appalachian Mountain Club, local government and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs.

44

I appreciate your cooperation and assistance with this request and look forward

to working with you on behalf of the Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett

Trail.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, you have convinced me. This Committee is

going to make a field hearing up there, as of your testimony today.

About October, would that be a good time for us?

[Laughter.]

Mr. NEAL. You can stay at my home.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, we thank you all, for all of your testimony.

Let me just hit a few quick questions, and then we will let the

Committee.

First, Virgil, this 15 acres that we are talking about here. That

was part of the original farm?

Mr. GOODE. Half of it was. It is near Route 122, which is the

main road in that section of Franklin County. And if the 15 acres

could be acquired, it would be a buffer between the Booker T.

Washington National Monument and all the growth that is occurring on Smith Mountain Lake at West Lake Corner. So it is a visible 15 acres, and half of it was in the original farm.

Mr. HEFLEY. Would it be an effective buffer? There is considerable expense to doing this, as you know. If we do this, would it be

the buffer you need to protect the monument from now on?

Mr. GOODE. There will never be another opportunity. The developer is coming right down the highway toward Booker T. right

now. The building-supply store that I mentioned is between the

stoplight and the Booker T. Washington monument, and grading is

already occurring between the building-supply store, which opened

about a month ago, and the land that is for sale.

And the other witnesses can testify and also speak to that later

on.

Mr. HEFLEY. All right.

On the other issue, the trail, two questions, Mr. Olver and Nancy

and Jim.

How much use is there of the existing trail system that you

have? And you have a considerable trail system there.

And secondly, Nancy, you particularly mentioned that only about

25 percent of it is on public land now. What problems do we face

with getting private landowners either to give us an easement or

sell right-of-way or whatever? How would you plan to handle the

private land that is there?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, first of all, the study is the first and crucial

step, because it is through the study that people begin to look at

the larger possibilities here and how their land might be part of a

preservation effort.

I would like to call this Committee’s attention to the Wild and

Scenic River experience that we had, because one of the real difficulties that we face, governing from Washington, is that the regions of the country are very different. And so we don’t have any

of the problems that a state like Nevada has, where the Federal

Government owns and operates so much Federal land, because we

don’t have that kind of Federal presence on our lands.

45

But it has meant that in order to have Federal assistance, we

have had to adjust Federal law to our needs. And when I tried to

get the Farmington River designated a Wild and Scenic River

under President Reagan—who remember at the beginning of his

term, he was all about local control and so on and so forth—I got

the study. And from that, everybody, all the towns, got to understand why this was important and how it could be done in a way

that was useful to them.

But the study took a while to get going because we wanted local

representation on the study Committee, because our lands along

the river are also either state parks or locally owned. But the majority was locally owned.

And we ended up adjusting the Wild and Scenic River law to

what is now called the partnership rivers law. That is the eastern

addition of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers program. It is still

called a Wild and Scenic River, but it is governed through a partnership of state and local and Federal effort.

And there wasn’t that sort of transference to the Federal Government of total power over the river. It took us several years to work

out what would happen if the local people didn’t live up to the

standards of Wild and Scenic and how we would deal with that if

that happened.

So out of this study may very well come a little different way of

governing a trail down central Connecticut than we have in the Appalachian area. I think it is too soon to say.

But the study will help us lay the foundation of information and

understanding that is essential to success. And then from that, we

will see how we move to actually establish this trail and preserve

it.

But one of the things that Richard and I worked on extensively

was President Clinton’s national Heritage rivers, because in my

part of the world, we just need a river pilot who helps all of these

little, tiny towns, all of whom have very strong local governments,

to just know what the Federal resources are.

The configuration of our communities and the power distribution

in our communities, where local government is very strong and

some of us don’t even have county governments, we did need that

Federal assistance in coordinating access to programs that were already there.

So in those two instances, the national Heritage rivers with the

river pilot concept, and these partnership rivers that are a variant

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers, we have had to, in the end, have

a little different adaptation of the way we achieve Federal goals in

harmony with our long tradition of very strong and very powerful

local government.

So I certainly wouldn’t want to prejudge exactly what is going to

come of this study, but I know one thing that will come of this

study: preservation of this trail, because we are very preservationoriented. And we are very committed to preserving for citizens this

right to enjoy.

Just look at small towns that have very little budgets and have

already begun to put money aside for acquisition.

46

And so, there are a lot of ways in which this could work out. But

the first important step is the study, so everyone understands what

the vision is and the possibilities are.

And then, we are very good at working together. And the partnership in Connecticut of the Federal, state, and local action, as my

colleague Congressman Maloney pointed out to you, has always

been very vital and very productive.

So I thank you for asking that question, and particularly for me

to have the opportunity to focus your staff on the fact that a number of Federal laws have been adjusted when applied in the New

England context of distributed Federalist power.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, could I just add to that just a

slightly different perspective?

Unlike states in the West, the issues of Federal lands, it plays

out very differently in the East. The State of Connecticut, for example, has the lowest percentage of Federally owned land of any

state in the country. And the notion of the Federal Government

taking an active role in open space preservation is extremely wellreceived in Connecticut.

The state government has also embarked on a very aggressive

program of open space conservation. And many local communities

and towns in Connecticut—we have no county government at all in

Connecticut— have been very, very actively been involved. One of the towns next door to me just passed a huge $30 million

proposal to acquire some open space, which they are going to pay

for out of their town budget. That is how important the issue of

open space is in a densely populated state like Connecticut.

And the final point, Mr. Chairman, to your question, I was at the

Castle Craig, which, again, is at the junction of the Mattabesett

and Monadnock Trails. It shows on one of the photographs Mr.

Olver presented to you.

I was up there at the top of the mountain recently on a weekday,

just a weekday in the middle of the summer. And there was a

steady stream of people actively traversing the ridges.

So this is a system that is very popular, very well-regarded. And

the action by the Federal Government in support of this legislation

would be extraordinarily well-received at home.

Mr. OLVER. If I may add also, just very briefly, most of the usage

is by afficianados of day hiking or long-distance hiking. The usage

of this trail with a designation as we are seeking the feasibility

study for would undoubtedly increase the usage by a substantial

amount. I wouldn’t want to try to predict exactly how much.

I think in Massachusetts the trail that has been proposed here

is more on public land than has been suggested in Connecticut. I

think it is probably closer to 50 percent there, with some additional

land that already has negotiated legal easements for the locus of

the trail.

And generally, the support is very strong, as Mr. Maloney has

pointed out, for involvement in this. There is a different kind of

way of looking at the public availability of these sorts of features.

Two small sections, actually, totalling about 10 miles, have been

designated as a National Recreation Trail. They have been added

to the National Recreation Trail System. And those are part of the

ridge, which, if this proves feasible, with your help, then would beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:10 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74087.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

come part of the Scenic trail or whatever the feasibility study were

to determine. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Committee, questions? Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I think both these bills are in the public interest. I

appreciate the testimony and hope that the Committee would favorably report them out.

Michigan is somewhat between the far eastern states and the far

west. We don’t have quite as much Federal land, not near as much

as the West. But we do have a little bit more Federal land than

the original states.

And I, in my tenure here on this Committee, have been able to

establish 100,000 acres of wildness area, beautiful land that for

some reason escaped cutting. It stands just as it came from the

hand of the God.

And the only way you can enter into the wilderness area is on

foot. And it is just a great adventure for people, not only in Michigan, but people come from all around.

So this is similar to that experience that you would create there.

And I also was able to get a bill passed to have 1,000 miles of

Wild and Scenic Rivers in Michigan, which has been an enormous

success.

So I really feel that it is important that the development taking

place—in my own district, there were areas 10 years ago that were

really much as they came from the hand of God. Right now, you

will find what I call ‘‘starter mansions’’ being built on tracks out

there now.

And it is a shame that we didn’t—thank God, when I was in the

state legislature, I kept buying as much land as I could between

the city of Detroit and Flint, so we keep some green area. But you

have to do it when you can or your do lose it. So I commend you

for what you are doing.

I also am happy to hear that all the Members of Congress

through which this trail would pass are supportive of that. That is

not quite as important to me as it is to Don Young, who used to

be Chairman of this Committee, because Don Young, that is one of

his first questions: Do all the Members of Congress support this?

So I am sure Don Young would be happy to support you on that.

And I really appreciate your testimony, and I want to support

both the bills. Thank you very much.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that both these bills will pass overwhelmingly, but I am

little curious as to what you see will be the restrictions on private

property.

The background sheet we have says that this bill is going to increase the protection of these trails from encroaching development.

If a person has a vacant piece of land right now that he is planning to build let’s say a small shopping center on, would this in any

way stop that?

Or if a homeowner does not want to—Mr. Olver mentioned the

great increases in the number of hikers that he expects. If a

48

private landowner doesn’t want several thousand people hiking

their backyard, what limitations are there?

What do you think this is going to show, Mr. Maloney?

Mr. MALONEY. Well, the process in Connecticut has been almost

exclusively voluntary in terms of the acquisition of open space land.

For example, recently the State of Connecticut just completed a

negotiation with a power company for the acquisition about 11,000

acres in Fairfield County.

Mr. DUNCAN. What about the two examples I had, though? Could

a person build a shopping center, if it blocked part of this trail?

Mr. MALONEY. Only if it would want to be having parking lots

on 45-degree slopes. I don’t think, as a practical matter, this is

going to occur.

These are ridgeline trails. And as a practical matter, the answer,

sir, I think—

Mr. DUNCAN. There is no flat land in all the hundreds—

Mr. MALONEY. I can’t say there is no flat land.

Mr. DUNCAN. What about through somebody’s backyard?

Mr. MALONEY. Well, I think that is an issue and that will have

to be negotiated. The feasibility study will look at that. And in

terms of the response coming out of the feasibility study, as I say,

the approach in Connecticut has been very much a voluntary approach, developing consensus for this kind of natural preservation.

Mr. DUNCAN. But if somebody wanted to fence in their backyard?

Mr. MALONEY. That would be an issue, just like it is anywhere

else.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Gilchrest?

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have two sort of question/comments.

One, looking at the map, as the trail goes through Connecticut

and Massachusetts and New Hampshire, is there any discussion

with the Vermonters to add a little side link to the Long Trail that

goes from Massachusetts to Canada? The Long Trail it is called.

Mr. OLVER. The Long Trail goes the full length of the State of

Connecticut, and half of it is already contiguous with the Appalachian Trail. So Vermont has a full north-south trail.

Now, there is talk about extending a trail also within the

Connecticut watershed to the Connecticut lakes. There are four

lakes at the very north end at the Canadian border, which the final

one, the fourth Connecticut lake—I think it is fourth; it may be

only the third—is the source of the Connecticut River. And there

is talk of then creating a trail that would go to the Canadian border, as a further extension.

But that would use partly the Appalachian Trail. As the map

shows, it turns northward just past Hanover, New Hampshire, and

goes northward for awhile, and then turns eastward toward Mount

Katahdin. And at its northern most point, somewhere there, you

would perhaps take another 60 or 100 miles of walking trail to the

Connecticut border.

But that is not the subject of this feasibility study.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

49

Mr. OLVER. This one is intended to get us from the Long Island

Sound to the Appalachian Trail junction somewhere in the Hanover, New Hampshire, the Dartmouth College area.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is a great concept.

In my district in Maryland, the bulk of my district, from Virginia

to Pennsylvania, is carpeted with farms and dotted with little fishing villages. And we have been working diligently, not so much

with a piece of legislation—although this is a good idea, so maybe

I will bring something forward, Mr. Chairman—to keep agriculture

profitable. Because if agriculture goes, then there goes your open

space.

But we have been working with farmers and the chamber of commerce and you name it, anybody that would listen to us, to create

a habitat conservation corridor for wildlife.

This trail that you are setting up is sort of a habitat conservation

corridor for hikers. What we want to do is create a habitat conservation corridor for subspecies, anything other than humans, although humans can certainly walk through it.

And in the process of doing this, create this habitat for migrating

water fowl, for deer, for fox, for shorebirds, for Baltimore orioles,

you name it.

We have been talking to landowners—this is always an issue— about whether or not someone can fence off their backyard, or

whether or not somebody can build a shopping plaza, or whether

or not somebody can build a home for their children, or whether

or not somebody eventually can sell that land so they can retire.

What we found, something that Nancy said a little earlier, other

than what you might find in the western states, there is virtually

no public land or very, very little public land in many of the eastern states. And so people are very encouraged to have the Federal,

state, or local government purchase easements on their property so

that that land, like it is now, will look that way for generations to

come.

So these kinds of concepts in areas that are threatened by the

megalopolis from Boston to Richmond would like to preserve some

of their heritage, some of their tradition.

So the panel said virtually all or most people. I haven’t found

anybody in our district yet that isn’t encouraged by some monetary

compensation stipend to preserve that land or plant trees or put it

in the conservation easement or a conservation reserve program or

the Swampbuster or the Sodbuster or the EQIP or the Farmland

Protection Program or whatever else is out there, because we just

don’t have the vast stretches of pristine wilderness that they do

west of the Mississippi River.

But this is a great concept, and I wish you well.

Mr. OLVER. I think your concept of a habitat corridor for hikers

is an excellent one. We will have to incorporate that somewhere.

I do want to repeat, before you came in, I pointed out that all

of this lies within the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge, so already we have tried to create a habitat there, a very creative piece

of legislation that was, not quite like any other fish and wildlife

refuge we have in this country. And it continues to evolve as really

creative things ought to do.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

50

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Gibbons?

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

And certainly, I can appreciate both of these bills. However, according to Don Young, I am not qualified to speak on them, since

I have never been to either one of these areas.

[Laughter.]

I have very little knowledge other than what I have heard here

today, although I find them interesting and certainly an appropriate discussion item for this Committee as well.

My thought would be that, coming from a state that has nearly

90 percent of its state federally managed, which creates a whole

different panoply of problems for us out there—we have a lot of

taking of private property rights without compensation in these

areas, due to some enthusiasm for protection of open spaces, even

including private interest and private in-holdings. There is always

a taking of somebody’s right or use of their land when it is within

these private areas.

I would ask and I presume none of you would be objectionable

to the utilization of CARA dollars or moneys from that source to

acquire the private in-holdings in some of these areas, if there is

a willing seller/willing buyer type of arrangement to accommodate

this.

And the second part would be, does the group of you support the

idea of the Federal Government—and I like the idea of a study. I

think the study is great, because it is going to identify the weaknesses, identify the strengths, and make this a much better idea,

rather than us having a dictatorial, know-it-all, see-everythingfrom-Washington’s-perspective and point-of-view sort of attitude.

Does the group support the idea of the Federal Government

going in and actually requiring private property right holders to divest themselves either with compensation or without compensation

of any rights that they may have? In other words, forcing themselves under something like an eminent domain type law?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Gibbons, in the trail system, the National Trails

System, I don’t think that it has been typical—in fact, only extremely rarely used, that there have been takings in any of these,

for the National Trails System, which is the designation that is

being sought here.

Mr. GIBBONS. Right.

Mr. OLVER. The feasibility study—

Mr. GIBBONS. But we are worried about encroaching—

Mr. OLVER. —would define that, and that would take a couple of

years to define what would be necessary, if anything. But I would

anticipate that this would be totally or virtually totally by negotiation.

And if you needed—

Mr. GIBBONS. Okay. So it would be willing buyer/willing seller?

Mr. OLVER. —to around a shopping center, because it does pass

through low land where there may be people, if somebody really objects, you would move the trail, probably.

Mrs. JOHNSON. I have to say that while the power of eminent domain is in the law, in working on the Appalachian Trail, which

goes all up the whole northern side of Connecticut—it is a long distance—we did run into one instance in which eminent domain

51

negotiations began. But they resulted in an agreement with the

landowner.

And there were several points where negotiations did go on with

landowners. Sometimes the trail bed was moved, if there was an

equally desirable place for it to go. Sometimes some other possibilities were developed to shield and make sure that the privacy issues

that landowner was concerned about were addressed.

In this area, I think the study will reveal that there are some

areas that have become so densely populated already that sort of

the idea of any kind of original footpath can’t be identified, and it

will be adjusted to wherever is best, maybe through a local park

or whatever.

So there is a lot of room for adjustment.

The other thing I would mention to you is that I have a bill in

the Ways and Means Committee, which I so far have not been able

to get through, but it speaks to this very issue.

We can’t have the government buying all this land, frankly, I

don’t think. Even in the Farmland Preservation Program, there

will never be enough resources to help protect the biggest farms.

But there are other ways of doing it, through easement agreements that affect a local tax base. Connecticut has a very good law

in that regard.

And my bill will allow small landowners to, over time, recoup the

lost value of their land, lost through contribution to a conservation

easement or, in this case, a path easement, and to recoup the lost

value through tax credits, so that actually a small landowner could

gain back some of the income lost by foregoing the right to sell the

property.

I do think we have to be concerned about the fact that for most

people their land is their primary asset and a large part of their

retirement security. So I think we have to be sure there are diverse

tools and that the negotiations do bring to the table everyone’s interest.

But the Federal Government coming in and mandating, that has

been a real and honest problem in your part of the country. And

we ought to be tougher about it as a nation, that local planning

and local decisionmaking is every bit as important as national authority.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me just finish up in the seconds that I

have, which have already elapsed here.

You know, trail systems always pass through many states, many

counties, and gather a large number of supporters whose interests

are oftentimes much greater than the individual private property

owners that happen to be in the path of that trail over time.

What I worry about is the long-term effect of having a large

group of individuals’ combined interest along the length of a trail

dictate, of course, what would otherwise be local control and local

input out of the picture.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Let me just remind you, though, when we did the

Wild and Scenic River study in Connecticut, it goes through

Connecticut and Massachusetts. And, actually, we never designated

the Massachusetts segment, because the Massachusetts people in

those towns didn’t want it.

52

We did designate the Connecticut segment because the

Connecticut landowners and the Connecticut towns did want it,

and they worked together to satisfy themselves that their rights locally would be protected at the same time they achieved this national objective.

So just because we do a study, that doesn’t preordain where we

are going to end up. We are going to end up wherever we as a community in the Northeast are willing to end up.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me just say, I support the study. I think it is

a great idea. I am just concerned about private property owners

losing power to bigger interests and combined political power of

states outside or individual congressional districts outside of the affected area.

And when those combine, saying that it is better for us to impose

on your district what we think you should do and what your private landowners should do, even though it doesn’t affect us, I

mean, the combined power of those political entities oftentimes dictates.

What I only wanted to mention was that I worry about combined

power, political power, over individual property rights and property

rights owners.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Ms. Solis?

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to associate my comments with Mr. Kildee. I am very

supportive of both pieces of legislation and am working on my own

efforts to try to create an urban conservancy with Federal assistance.

And I can understand the issues being raised here regarding

eminent domain and property rights. We are having to deal with

that along our river, which encompasses over 30 communities, municipalities, many of whom—you have private owners, utility companies, and others that we have to negotiate with.

But the long and the short of it is that there is this desire, I

think, on the part of the public to preserve what little open space

is available.

In my district, for example, we have a larger percentage in highdensity and a very low amount of available open space for people

to enjoy, to recreate, and to continue to support.

So I want to associate myself with your bill, and I look forward

to seeing it pass through this Committee.

Mr. HEFLEY. I think this Committee illustrates better than anything in a long time the difference in needs and desires of people

in various regions of the country.

You are tinkled pink with the idea of additional Federal participation in your states. Jim and I, 90 percent in his state and about

a third of my state is owned by the Federal Government, and so

we say, ‘‘Oh, no. No more Federal Government in our states.’’

I put a great deal of confidence in you folks from the area—

maybe not quite like Don Young, Dale.

But you know your area better than we do. I have been there,

but Jim has not been there. We don’t know your area.

53

I know Wayne’s area a little bit. And I understand perfectly what

he is wanting in a habitat type of corridor there, and it makes a

lot of sense to me.

But I wish that you all from the East, when these western land

issues come up, would give us the same respect that we give you

in assuming that you know better than we do what is important

in your area.

The ridiculousness of Mo Hinchey from New York introducing a

wilderness bill for Utah, you know, it doesn’t make any sense at

all, except some wilderness conservation group has gotten to him

and gotten him to introduce that bill. He doesn’t know what that

means to the school districts and the little communities out there

in the West if you take what is now multiple-use land and all of

a sudden you fence it off.

I don’t know in Michigan about that 100,000 acres that you got

designated as wilderness. I would like for you to invite me up

there. I would love to go see that because I love wilderness. But

I think there ought to be a balance.

But what I am trying to say is that when you are not from those

areas and you don’t know the ramifications, I wish you would give

the nod to some of us who do live there and have to live with those

situations, the same as we should give the nod to you on things

like this.

I think what you are talking about, on the surface of it, sounds

terrific. And I would hope that the study shows that it is terrific

and it works out.

I have the same concerns that Mr. Duncan and Mr. Gibbons expressed about private landowners, and we have to work that out

properly.

Conservation easements of one kind or another, I like that idea.

I think that is a good idea. We don’t have to own it all, if we can

get the conservation easements.

But I think this is a good hearing to show the difference in desires. And in the future, maybe we can work together better on this

kind of thing.

Any further questions or comments, Committee?

If not, thank you very much. And if you would like to join us,

we would be happy to have you do that.

Mr. Denis Galvin, who is the deputy director of the National

Park Service, will speak on both bills.

Mr. Galvin?

STATEMENT OF DENIS GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. GALVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared testimony on both

bills that I will submit for the record. I will simply summarize the

administration position on these two bills.

I have with me Rebecca Harriett, the superintendent of Booker

T. Washington National Monument. She will be able to answer any

more detailed questions, should it please the Chair.

We are pleased for the opportunity to give our views H.R. 1456,

a bill to expand the boundary of Booker T. Washington National

Monument in Franklin County, Virginia.

54

The department supports H.R. 1456.

It would not contribute to the National Park Service maintenance backlog because if the land is acquired, it would be added

to the park’s agricultural permit program. No additional facilities

would be built on it, no operating funds would be required, no additional staffing would be needed.

The current owners have indicated that they would be willing to

sell the property to the United States. If authorized, this acquisition would be subject to service-wide priorities and the availability

of appropriations.

As Congressman Goode testified, we are talking about a parcel

of approximately 15 acres abutting the northeast boundary of the

park. This current landscape is consistent with the agricultural

landscape inside the park, but it is in a region subject to extreme

development pressures.

In fact, the next tract beyond this tract has been developed. In

the photographs that I have reviewed, you can see the development

from this track.

Seven of the 15 acres were part of the original Burroughs farm

where Booker T. Washington grew up. The monument was authorized in April 1956 to create a public national memorial to Booker

T. Washington, noted Negro educator and apostle of goodwill.

It protects the birth site and childhood home of Booker T. Washington. It provides a resource for public education and a focal point

for continuing discussions about the legacy of Booker T. Washington and the evolving context of race in American society.

As I said, the park is 224 acres. It includes the Burroughs house

site, not the house itself, two slave cabin sites that are 1960’s reconstruction.

It was an agricultural landscape when Booker T. Washington

was born there, and it remains an agricultural landscape today. In

his biography, ‘‘Up from Slavery,’’ Washington frequently referred

to the rural life and the influences it had upon him.

The Park Service did a viewshed study in 1998 and identified

this land as the most critical for addition to boundary based on its

elevation and proximity to the birthplace site.

Acquisition of this parcel would provide the necessary intervening land between development and the agricultural scene of the

park, so that visitors will be able to experience the area as it was

during Booker T. Washington’s occupancy.

I would be glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. If it

pleases you, I could go on to the second bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Why don’t you go on to the second.

Mr. GALVIN. I am pleased to present the department’s views on

H.R. 1814, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett trail extending through New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

The trail extends from Mount Cube in Grafton Country, New

Hampshire, to the Long Island Sound. That is, the proposed trail

does.

The department supports this study. However, we will not consider requesting funding for this study in this or the next fiscal

year. We are undertaking, currently, 41 authorized studies.

55

We caution that our support of this legislation does not necessarily mean that the department will ultimately support designation of these segments as additions to the National Trails System.

The administration is determined to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national parks, but the cost of new parks or

other commitments could divert funds from taking care of current

possibilities.

The previous witnesses have certainly adequately discussed the

concept of this trail. It is 260 miles long. It would connect the Appalachian Trail to the Long Island Sound in Connecticut.

It would largely follow existing trails. The new trail sections

would need to be developed in New Hampshire to connect the Appalachian Trail at the north end, and in Connecticut, linking the

Mattabesett Trail to Long Island Sound at the south end.

Other shorter gaps would also need to be filled. And the study

would, obviously, look at those needed additions.

The great majority of this trail is on private land. Outside of sections of trail on state lands, the trail currently is permitted to cross

private land through a variety of agreements with the landowners.

This is not a historic route, and it is not proposed to be a national historic trail. Each section was conceived and built by local

trail enthusiasts, and much of the work was initiated in the late

1950’s.

The partners included the Connecticut Forest and Park Association for the Connecticut trail, the Appalachian Mountain Club

through its Berkshire chapter in Massachusetts, and a relatively

new Monadnock-Sunapee greenway trail club, which has the primary responsibility for the trail in New Hampshire.

Organized volunteers would provide the management and maintenance for each trail section, as in the case of the Appalachian

Trail, Mr. Chairman. If the trail was designated as part of the National Trails System, those existing trail clubs would continue to be

given the opportunity to assume a leadership role.

The existing sections have similar scenic and recreational characteristics to the Appalachian Trail. And as I said, the concept would

be to continue the role of volunteers and trail organizations as

major participants in the operation, placement, and creation of the

trail.

As Mr. Olver mentioned, Secretary Gale Norton in June of this

year designated two sections of part of this trail as National Recreation Trails. The National Trails Act gives her that authority.

The designation of a National Scenic Trail, proposed in

H.R. 1814, of course, requires an act of Congress.

We support this proposed study. As Congresswoman Johnson

mentioned, such studies have been effective in New England in determining management formulas that fit the local situation, both

on trails and in Heritage areas and in Wild and Scenic Rivers. And

that would be our intention as we undertake this study in this

three state area.

We believe the study would take 3 years to complete. It would

follow the requirements set out in Section 5(b) of the National

Trails System Act, which requires considerable public input. As

was pointed out by the previous witnesses, we are talking about

hundreds of communities here. And it would be our intention,

56

certainly, to get their input as we come forward with a recommendation to the Congress upon the completion of the study.

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

to answer any questions of the Subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin on H.R. 1456 follows:]

Statement of Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1456

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

Interior’s views on H.R.1456, a bill to expand the boundary of Booker T. Washington

National Monument, Franklin County, Virginia.

The Department supports H.R.1456. The addition would not contribute to the National Park Service (NPS) maintenance backlog because the land would be added

to the park agricultural permit program, and no additional facilities, operating

funds or staffing will be needed. The current owners have indicated that they would

be willing to sell the property to the United States. If authorized, this acquisition

would be subject to NPS servicewide priorities and the availability of appropriations.

This legislation will adjust the boundary of Booker T. Washington National Monument to authorize acquiring from willing sellers a parcel of approximately 15 acres

abutting the northeast boundary of the park. The addition and preservation of this

15-acre tract will ensure that park visitors may experience an agricultural landscape while inside the park, in a region that is subject to extreme development pressure. Seven of the 15 acres were part of the original Burrough’s farm where Booker

T. Washington grew up.

Booker T. Washington National Monument was authorized on April 2, 1956, to

create a ‘‘public national memorial to Booker T. Washington, noted Negro educator

and apostle of good will.’’ Booker T. Washington National Monument preserves and

protects the birth site and childhood home of Booker T. Washington while interpreting his life experiences and significance in American history as the most powerful African American between 1895 and 1915. The park provides a resource for public education and a focal point for continuing discussions about the legacy of Booker

T. Washington and the evolving context of race in American society.

The park is 224 acres of rolling hills, woodlands, and agricultural fields. The primary archeological resources include the Burrough’s house site, or ‘‘Big House,’’ two

slave cabin sites with a 1960’s reconstructed cabin on one of the sites. The agricultural landscape plays a critical role in the park’s interpretation of Washington’s life

as an enslaved child during the Civil War. Many of his stories and experiences are

centered on this small tobacco farm. In his autobiography Up From Slavery Washington frequently refers to the ‘‘rural’’ life and the influences it had upon him.

A 1998 Viewshed Study conducted as a component of the park’s March 2000 General Management Plan (GMP) identified this land as the most critical for addition

to the boundary based on its elevation and proximity to the birthplace site. The parcel has been on and off the market for several years and is currently for sale. The

land is currently used for open agricultural fields.

The park is located near the regional recreation area of Smith Mountain Lake,

which has grown in population and development in the last ten years. The park lies

a half-mile from a commercial crossroads called Westlake Corner. This area has become the primary hub of services for the Smith Mountain Lake community and continues to grow. Acquisition of this parcel would provide the necessary buffer between this development and the park so that the visitors will be able to experience

the area as it was during Booker T. Washington’s life.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks.

I would be glad to answer any question that you or members of the subcommittee

might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin on H.R. 1814 follows:]

Statement of Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1814

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1814, a bill to amend

the National Trails System Act to designate the Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–

Mattabesett Trail extending through western New Hampshire, western

57

Massachusetts, and central Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Trails System. The trail would traverse in a north-south direction from a location near Mount Cube in Grafton County, New Hampshire, and extend to the Long

Island Sound east of New Haven, Connecticut. The Department supports this study.

Although the Department supports enactment of this legislation in concept, we

will not consider requesting funding for this study in this or the next fiscal year.

As of now, there are 41 authorized studies that are pending, and we only expect

to complete a few of those this year. We caution that our support of this legislation

authorizing a study does not necessarily mean that the Department will support

designations of these segments as additions to the National Trails System. The Administration is determined to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog in national parks, but the cost of new parks or other commitments could divert funds

from taking care of current responsibilities.

The purpose of this bill is to conduct a study to determine the suitability for inclusion in the National Trails System of this 260-mile extended trail, which could eventually connect the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in New Hampshire with Long

Island Sound in Connecticut. The Trail would largely follow existing trails linking

the Monadnock–Sunapee–Greenway Trail in New Hampshire, to the Metacomet– Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts and Connecticut, to the Mattabesett Trail in

Connecticut. New trail sections would need to be developed in New Hampshire connecting the Appalachian Trail to the top of Mount Sunapee, and in Connecticut linking the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island Sound. Other shorter gaps would also need

to be filled. The great majority of this trail is located on private land. Outside of

sections of trail on state lands, the trail currently is permitted to cross private land

through a variety of agreements with the landowners. As part of this study, these

agreements should be examined to ensure that the National Park Service works cooperatively with private landowners in an effort to continue public access across

these private lands if the trail is designated.

Although the region was heavily traveled by Native Americans, for whom the

trails have been named, it is not an historic route. Each section was conceived and

built by local trail enthusiasts and much of the work was initiated in the late

1950’s. The Connecticut Forest and Park Association has been the primary steward

of the Mattabesett Trail and the Connecticut portion of the Metacomet Trail. The

Appalachian Mountain Club, through its Berkshire Chapter, has picked up the responsibility for the Metacomet—Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts. The relatively

new Monadnock–Sunapee–Greenway Trail club has the primary responsibility for

the trail in New Hampshire. Organized volunteers provide the management and

maintenance for each trail segment. If the trail was designated as part of the National Trails System, then existing trail clubs would be given the opportunity to assume a leadership role in working with landowners and communities to address any

concerns they may have.

The existing sections of this proposed trail have similar scenic and recreational

characteristics to the segments of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The trails provide for a rare opportunity for multi-day, overnight hiking trips in highly populated Connecticut and

Massachusetts. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, the state governments and wellestablished trails organizations have made substantial commitments to the existing

trail sections. In New Hampshire, the trail organization, which serves as steward

to the trail, is relatively new and its commitment to the New Hampshire section

of the trail is not as certain. Our experience with other national scenic and historic

trails shows that trail clubs can and should assume a leadership role in working

with landowners and communities, addressing their concerns to make their trails

successful. The opportunity for good partnering exists in all three states and is worthy of further exploration.

In June 2001, Secretary Gale Norton designated two sections of the MetacometMonadnock Trail as a national recreation trail, recognizing the outstanding scenic

features, geological formations, and natural and cultural resources along the route.

There are well over 800 national recreation trails in the National Trails System.

The designation of the national scenic trail proposed in H.R. 1814 would, if successful, provide more extensive Federal involvement, through the authorities of the National Trails System Act for this chain of trails.

The National Park Service supports this proposed study, as the existing trail segments possess many of the characteristics required of a national scenic trail. Only

through further investigation will it be possible to determine if it is feasible and

suitable for inclusion in the National Trails System. 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.

58

If H.R. 1814 is enacted and funds are available, the National Park Service would

launch a study of the existing and proposed trails segments to evaluate the support

for the trail, the impacts of federal involvement on the communities and private

property it passes through, and the resources which would be opened for public use.

The study would take approximately three years to complete and would, at a minimum, follow the requirements listed in section 5(b) of the National Trails System

Act. Through this process, the National Park Service looks forward to working with

and hearing the valuable input of the hundreds of communities that these trails

cross in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other committee

members might have.

Mr. HEFLEY. Questions, Committee?

Ms. Solis?

Mr. Gibbons?

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, thank you very much.

I noticed in your testimony, Mr. Galvin, you used the words experience an ‘‘agricultural landscape’’ while within the park. What

is the significance or importance of experiencing an agricultural

landscape?

Mr. GALVIN. Well, Booker T. Washington for the first 9 years of

his life was a slave on a tobacco farm in this portion in Virginia.

And he mentions in ‘‘Up from Slavery’’ how important that rural

and agricultural surrounding was to him.

We also manage another great site associated with Booker T.

Washington, the Tuskegee Institute. That is, it is still a private college, but we run a museum on the site there.

And his whole approach to education was very strongly influenced—and somewhat controversially, too, I might say—influenced

by his agricultural experience. The buildings at Tuskegee were

built by the students—

Mr. GIBBONS. Within the national monument itself, the Booker

T. Washington monument, that 224-acre site, without the 15 acres

that we are discussing in this bill, are there agricultural experiences within there?

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. Yes, we do agricultural leasing within the

boundaries of the monument.

Mr. GIBBONS. So you find that having an agricultural experience

within a national monument or any part of the Park Service is not

a detriment?

Mr. GALVIN. No. Certainly not.

Obviously, it depends on the purposes that Congress sets forth.

But I was up at Minute Man National Historical Park in

Massachusetts last Friday, and they have agricultural leases as

well, because in the 18th century obviously it was an agricultural

landscape.

Mr. GIBBONS. Going over H.R. 1814, the bill on the trail up

there, do you have an estimate of the cost to the government to

maintain the trail, should it become a National Scenic Trail. What

would be the cost to your agency?

Mr. GALVIN. We really don’t have an estimate. We would put one

in the study.

But I would say that the model here is definitely the Appalachian Trail. And on the Appalachian Trail, for the entire length

of the Appalachian Trail, I believe the National Park Service has

59

about three employees. All of the maintenance on the trail is done

by private trail groups.

And I would think that that would be the experience here. We

might have a coordinator, one person on the ground here, but the

actual operation and maintenance of the trail would be done by

trail groups.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Goode?

Well, thank you very much.

Mr. GALVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Very helpful, and we appreciate it.

Third panel, Ann Colson, director of volunteers and trails coordinator for the Connecticut Forest and Park Association; Peg Brady,

executive director, Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston; and

Florella Johnson, associate superintendent of Franklin County

Schools, Rocky Mount, Virginia.

Why don’t we start with you, Ms. Johnson, because I assume you

are going to be talking about Booker T. Washington, since you are

from Virginia?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HEFLEY. All right, let’s have that first, and then we will get

to the trail.

STATEMENT OF FLORELLA JOHNSON, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT, FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOLS, ROCKY MOUNT,

VIRGINIA

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, thank

you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. It is a

pleasure to share my feelings and the feelings shared by many of

Franklin County about the services afforded us by the Booker T.

Washington National Monument.

The Booker T. Washington National Monument is located in a

lovely, rural mountain region of southwest Virginia. This setting

lends an authentic feeling for the monument that recaptures the

true atmosphere of the past.

It is one of the few National Park Service sites that is set aside

where the America public can view on a smaller scale how slavery

and the plantation system worked.

This site includes historical structures, archaeological sites, museum objects, and a cultural landscape that are very significant to

its history. The development of surrounding land will serve to enhance or diminish the quality of the monument’s natural resources.

It certainly must be our goal to keep the monument as close to

its origin state as possible.

The Booker T. Washington monument is a wonderful setting for

a man of stature who confessed he learned this lesson:

‘‘I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by

the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which

he has overcome while trying to succeed. Out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a

strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race.’’

This lesson that Booker T. learned is an inspiration to all children. He has certainly shown that the most difficult and toughest

60

obstacles can be realized through perseverance and hard work.

Booker T.’s life is definitely an example of the kind of people who

make our country great.

As a citizen of Franklin County in Rocky Mount, Virginia, I take

great pride in living in a county that has a national monument.

Though all counties in the country have a history, and many have

histories of a community rich in heritage, Franklin County actually

has a national monument to commemorate the nationally recognized educator Booker T. Washington.

As an African-American who lives in Franklin County, I take

even greater pride in living in a county that has a national monument erected for an African-American.

Though we know that national monuments don’t exist in every

county and city in the country, a national monument erected for an

African-American is an ever more rare occurrence.

Because Franklin County has the Booker T. Washington National Monument, the people in the county can take pride in knowing that this great African-American educational leader had his

roots in the county.

Just as it is important to know his legacy, it is equally important

to maintain the integrity of his birthplace. Maintaining the integrity of the birthplace includes not only sustaining the upkeep and

appearance of the existing land but also ensuring that surrounding

land continues to provide the appearance of the scene set on the

existing farm.

The purchase of surrounding land on the other side of Route 122

would ensure that this happens.

As I travel through Appomattox, Virginia, in the historical area

commemorating the final battles of the Civil War, the scene on

both sides of Route 24 provides a perfect setting to commemorate

this great occasion.

The other aspect of the Booker T. Washington monument is the

educational value it holds for the students in Franklin County.

The superintendent and staff at the Booker T. Washington National Monument have been actively involved in establishing a

working relationship with the Franklin County School System and

the communities surrounding the park. This is a partnership that

is educationally rewarding for the school system’s 7,000 students.

One objective of the Park Service has been to structure the educational program to correlate with the standards of learning, commonly called in Virginia the SOLs, for the public schools there.

Several summers ago, a workshop was held at the park where

the Booker T. Washington program coordinators and Franklin

County teachers worked on developing a curriculum guide for

grades K-5. The guides were printed and placed in each elementary

schools’ main office, library, and the school board resource center.

This summer, 2001, a group of teachers will work again with the

program directors to update and refine their goals.

During the summer of 2000, the Booker T. Washington National

Monument service provided a historical camp for upper elementary

level students.

For the past 3 years, students in the Franklin County gifted program went to the monument for a unique Christmas experience

61

based on the book ‘‘Christmas in the Big House, Christmas in the

Quarters.’’ The Booker T. Washington rangers did a reenactment of what

Christmas was like during the time Booker lived on the Burroughs

plantation. This was a wonderful opportunity for children, their

families, and community visitors to come together for a festive preseason celebration with stories, music, and refreshments.

During history month, students study the events in history that

coincide with the time Booker lived on the Burroughs plantation

and wrote an original interpretation of the Underground Railroad.

The play was presented to family and friends on a Saturday at the

park. Many gathered and witnessed a superb performance by students. They had an opportunity to share with family and citizens

their understanding of an important event in history.

Farm life is vanishing fast in America. Even though our students

live in a rural area, they do not have exposure to farm life as it

once existed. At least this life is still addressed at the monument.

Students have the wonderful opportunity to relive this life through

artifacts, houses, occupations, et cetera.

I like change, but sometimes things need to remain the same.

The agricultural setting across from the monument must be allowed to remain. This will only be realized if the 15-acre desired

tract is obtained.

Recognition of the past is as vital to a growing institution as recognition of the future. As you take a walk through the Burroughs

plantation, a site restored to it general appearance in the mid-19th

century, you can feel history of the past.

I am here today asking you to obtain the 15-acre tract so the

Booker T. Washington monument can be preserved and protected.

And I would like to add, if we miss the purchase of this tract for

the monument, a crucial opportunity will be missed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Ms. Brady?

STATEMENT OF PEG BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Ms. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

On behalf of all the AMC members, the Appalachian Mountain

Club members, I am here today to speak in support of the

H.R. 1814, requesting the funds to move forward on a feasibility

study.

I would like to read my comments, if I could.

We commend the Committee for taking a leadership role in exploring new opportunities in New England to enhance the network

of hiking trails. And I also would like to point out, I appreciate the

deliberativeness with which you are approaching these comments

and discussions, particularly with regard to Mr. Gibbons’ comments

about ownership and property rights.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I come here to speak to you in support

and offer our following recommendations.

The Appalachian Mountain Club, first of all, is the oldest nonprofit conservation and recreation organization in the United

States, with a membership of over 95,000 members. We are very,

very active players in the New England trail network. And many

of these folks that are our members are very, very active volunteers, as Mr. Olver had mentioned earlier. Our Berkshire chapter

has been the backbone for his efforts in the Massachusetts area.

AMC promotes the protection, the enjoyment, and the wise use

of mountains, rivers, and trails in the Appalachian Mountain region. We service the Appalachian region from Virginia north, all

the way north to Maine.

AMC provides regional and national leadership in trail corridor

planning, construction, maintenance, and now we are getting very

deeply involved in trail head protection efforts in the State of New

Hampshire.

AMC is responsible for the management and maintenance and

stewardship of over 1,400 miles of trails throughout the AMC region. And each year, over 1,000, as I mentioned, volunteers, members of AMC, are working hand in hand with partnership groups

like Ann’s group, working to maintain trails throughout this region.

AMC’s White Mountain professional trail crew is responsible for

nearly 350 miles of trails and 800-plus trail signs, which oftentimes

disappear through a season.

We work cooperatively with the Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other nonprofit organizations, to protect and care

for trails, knowing that experiences they provide are invaluable to

the public.

The trails identified and proposed in this study provide a unique

and valuable recreation opportunity in addition to stunning vistas

from key ridges and peaks along the trail network. This network

passes along special streams, marshes, lakes, ponds, while taking

hikers, skiers, through forests and agricultural lands that provide

both solitude and a glimpse into the cultural character and history

67

of New England communities and play a host to these footpaths

and their visitors.

We believe the mountains and the rivers have an intrinsic worth

and also provide the needed—and I say desperately needed, in

some cases with some of the communities that are mentioned

today—desperately needed recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, ecological and economic health for the region.

AMC encourages its members and the public to enjoy and appreciate the natural world, because we believe that that successful

conservation and stewardship depends largely on that type of an

experience.

The Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett trail system as

it exists today is a resource that presents extensive opportunities

for both long-distance backpacking, as well as local day hiking,

cross-country skiing, jogging, and other fitness activities that are

easily accessible to people in the surrounding communities.

Ongoing efforts since the 1920’s and 1930’s to secure access to

and maintain these trails have been critical to the continued enjoyment of the trail and helped to preserve its landscape and a corridor of fragile habitat, reaching from Connecticut to New Hampshire.

The proposed designation as a National Scenic Trail would create

the opportunity to ensure that these outdoor experiences could be

enjoyed throughout this proposed corridor for generations to come.

The backbone of each stretch of this trail system consists of dedicated volunteers, including the AMC members and its chapters,

that have identified trail alignments, worked with private property

owners to ensure appropriate uses, published guides to inform the

public and the users of the trails, and maintained the trails over

the years to lessen the effects of overuse and unsafe conditions.

The proposed study and potential designation of the trail would

provide the volunteers with the additional source of funding for

maintenance and long-term planning.

The designation would also increase the organizational support

to recruit additional volunteers and garner additional resources for

ongoing maintenance needs and landowner relations.

Quite frankly, we could be leveraging considerable more resources, not only from public sources, but also from private sources.

This could serve a catalyst throughout the entire region.

Based on discussions we have had with our members and partner organizations, the AMC offers its support for the feasibility

study of the trail for the benefits that the designation as a National

Scenic Trail could provide to recreational opportunities and the

protection of the habitat corridor.

Based on past studies and the development of the National Scenic Trail systems, AMC recognizes that the issue of public land acquisition and methods used are often of great concern and may affect local support for final designation.

We understand from AMC members and partner organizations

that this is a concern that will need to be addressed during the feasibility study, as you folks have all suggested, prior to the designation.

AMC hopes that this study will build on the good relations that

now exist among the property owners and maintaining clubs

68

throughout this network. We encourage the feasibility study to be

conducted in a manner that continues to involve the maintaining

clubs, the associations, and the state land management agencies,

as they have been in the course of discussions leading to this point.

The success of this initiative will depend largely on the communications among the private landowners, who up until now have

generously allowed trail use through their properties, and as well

as reaching out to other interested parties who are not currently

involved.

Since designation as a National Scenic Trail could result in increased use of the trail system by long-distance hikers, particularly

if it provides a connection to the Appalachian Trail, AMC recommends that the feasibility study include: an assessment of anticipated use, the adequacy of overnight facilities, and the additional maintenance and management needs that would be required

to accommodate new users and avoid any potential negative impacts to the system or the surrounding areas.

AMC would be very happy to serve as a resource for information

on trail usage throughout New Hampshire as well as management

of backcountry facilities.

Finally, AMC understands that there will be additional discussions at the local level with the maintaining clubs and the state

land management agencies. We hope that with all the input gathered through this process, will be used in developing the scope of

this feasibility study.

Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to present

these comments, and I would be open to questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brady follows:]

Statement of Peg Brady, Director of Conservation Programs, Appalachian

Mountain Club, on H.R. 1814

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The Appalachian

Mountain Club (AMC) appreciates the committee’s invitation to attend today’s hearing. I offer the following testimony for your consideration regarding the House Bill

1814, entitled ‘‘To Amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett Trail extending through eastern New

Hampshire, western Massachusetts, and central Connecticut for study for potential

addition to the National Trails System’’. We commend the committee for taking a

leadership role and exploring new opportunities in New England to enhance the network of hiking trails. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before

you today to speak in support of H.R. 1814 and offer the following recommendations.

The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the oldest non-profit conservation and

recreation organization in the United States with a membership of over 95,000. The

AMC promotes the protection, enjoyment and wise use of the mountains, rivers and

trails of the Appalachian Mountain region. AMC provides regional and national

leadership in trail corridor planning, construction and maintenance and trailhead

protection. AMC is responsible for the management, maintenance, and stewardship

of over 1,400 miles of trails throughout out the AMC region and each year over 1000

volunteers contribute their time—-many of them contribute a full week—-to keeping

the trail system in top condition. AMC’s White Mountain Professional Trail crew is

responsible for nearly 350 miles of trails and 800+ trail signs. We work cooperatively with Federal, State and Local agencies as well as other non-profit organizations to protect and care for trails knowing that the experiences they provide are

invaluable to the public.

The trails identified and proposed for National Scenic Trails study in H.R. 1814

provides unique and valuable recreational opportunities in addition to stunning vistas from key ridges and peaks. This trail network pass along special streams,

marshes, lakes, and ponds while taking hikers and skiers through forests and agricultural lands that provide both solitude and a glimpse into the cultural character

69

of the New England communities that play host to these footpaths and their visitors. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and also provide needed recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic

health for the region. AMC encourages people to enjoy and appreciate the natural

world because we believe that successful conservation and stewardship depends on

this experience.

The Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett trail system as it exists today

is a resource that presents extensive opportunities for both long distance backpacking as well as local day hiking, cross country skiing, jogging, and other fitness

activities that are easily accessible to people in the surrounding communities. Ongoing efforts since the 1920’s and 1930’s to secure access to and maintain these trails

have been critical to the continued enjoyment of the trail and helped to preserve

its landscape and a corridor of fragile habitat reaching from Connecticut to New

Hampshire. Designation as a National Scenic Trail would create the opportunity to

ensure that these outdoor experiences could be enjoyed throughout this proposed

corridor for generations to come.

The backbone of each stretch of this trail system consists of dedicated volunteers,

including AMC members and its Chapters, that have identified the trail alignments,

worked with private landowners to ensure appropriate use, published guides, and

maintained the trails over the years to lessen the effects from overuse and unsafe

conditions. The proposed study and potential designation as a National Scenic Trail

would provide the volunteers with an additional source of funding for maintenance

and long-term planning. The designation would also increase the organizational support to recruit additional volunteers and garner additional resources for ongoing

maintenance needs and landowner relations.

Based on discussions we have had with our members and partner organizations,

the AMC offers its support for the feasibility study of the Metacomet–Monadnock–

Sunapee–Mattabesett Trail for the benefits that designation as a National Scenic

Trail could provide to recreational opportunities and the protection of the habitat

corridor.

Based on past studies and development of National Scenic Trail systems, AMC

recognized that the issue of public land acquisition and methods used are often of

great concern and may affect local support for final designation. We understand

from AMC members and partner organizations that this is a concern that will need

to be addressed during the feasibility study prior to the designation of the

Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett trail system. AMC hopes that this

study will build on the good relations that now exist among property owners and

the maintaining clubs. We encourage the feasibility study to be conducted in a manner that continues to involve the maintaining clubs, associations and state land

management agencies, as they have been in the course of discussions leading to this

point. The success of this initiative will depend largely on the communication among

the private landowners, who up until now, have generously allowed trail use

through their properties and as well as reaching out to other interested parties.

Since designation as a National Scenic Trail could result in increased use of the

trail system by long-distance hikers, particularly if it provides a connection to the

Appalachian Trail, AMC also recommends that the feasibility study include an assessment of anticipated use, the adequacy of overnight facilities, and any additional

maintenance and management needs that would be required to accommodate new

users and avoid negative impacts to the trail system or the surrounding areas. AMC

would be happy to serve as a resource for information on trail usage throughout

New Hampshire as well as management of backcountry facilities.

Finally, AMC understands that there will be additional discussions at the local

level with maintaining clubs and state land management agencies. We hope that all

input gathered through the stakeholder process will be considered in developing the

scope of the feasibility study.

Thank you for your consideration of AMC’s comments.

Mr. HEFLEY. Ms. Colson?

STATEMENT OF ANN COLSON, DIRECTOR OF VOLUNTEERS

AND TRAILS COORDINATOR, CONNECTICUT FOREST AND

PARK ASSOCIATION, ROCKFALL, CONNECTICUT

Ms. COLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

70

I would like to say at the outset that we at the Connecticut Forest and Park Association have been extremely gratified by the overwhelming public response in favor of the proposed feasibility study.

Letters of support from Connecticut town officials and land use

agencies along the trail corridor, and from conservation organizations, trail managers, hiking groups, and individual trail users,

along with the endorsement of—and I made a mistake here.

I said the entire congressional delegation from Connecticut. That

is incorrect. All of those Congresspeople who have trails going

through their towns have endorsed this and are in support of the

bill.

They are all testimony to the support of H.R. 1814.

Connecticut Forest and Park Association, for whom I work, was

founded in 1895, and it was the organization that established the

first four of the Blue-Blazed hiking trails. In 1929, the Metacomet

Trail was one of those.

You can see from our map over here the trail corridor runs

through the State of Connecticut. The Metacomet is the northern

section. The Mattabesett Trail is the southern section.

The yellow that you see are the potential towns that the trail can

go through to get to Long Island Sound.

The Town of Guilford, which is the yellow town furthest to the

left, has worked very hard to bring this about. They are meeting

with our roving trails crew to show them where the trail can go.

It is very important to them from an economic standpoint. Conservation and recreational use of trails is very important to them

as part of their town character.

In 1932, the Mattabesett Trail was added to the Blue trail system, following the ridgeline south to Bluff Head in north Guilford,

which is the southern most point of the trail now.

When setting up the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System, the

founding fathers also recognized the need for continuing trail maintenance, and, therefore, established a corps of volunteers who

would oversee the trails.

In 1929, there were 250 miles of Blue trails in Connecticut.

Today, there are more 700 miles of trail.

My role at Connecticut Forest and Park Association is director of

volunteers and trails coordinator. There actually are 92 trail managers for the entire 700-mile system of trails.

The growth of the trail system could not have been sustained

without the dedication of a veritable army of volunteers who build,

manage, and maintain the trails throughout the year.

Twelve trail managers are assigned to the combined 108 miles of

the Mattabesett and Monadnock trails, which are also overseen by

the CFPA trails Committee, which meets quarterly, and supported

by CFP professional staff.

These two trails pass through the state’s most diverse landscape,

from densely populated urban centers to cool forested woodlands,

streams, and ponds, past picturesque agricultural fields and atop

sheer cliff faces, offering sweeping views across Connecticut’s central valley.

On a clear day, hikers on the Metacomet Trail can see Long Island Sound to the south and Mount Tom in Massachusetts to the

north. From Bluff Head, the 360-degree viewshed includes the

71

distant city buildings of Hartford, our capital city, and the shimmering blue expanse of Long Island Sound, where it meets

Connecticut’s southern coast.

I have been to a lot of states in this country, and I think

Connecticut is probably the most diverse and one of the most beautiful. However, our population is exploding. We have 3 million

acres of land in Connecticut, and we have 3 million people in

Connecticut. We have 1 million dwelling units Connecticut.

We need these trails. We need the escape that they offer, and the

opportunity to see the state from somewhere other than Route 95.

Unsurpassed beauty is not all that awaits the curious observer

who hikes on these trails. Fragments of Connecticut’s history can

be found amongst the oaks and sugar maples and white pines: forgotten cemeteries, tracks of former stagecoach routes, caves used

by ancient Native American tribal councils, abandoned quarries,

old cellar holes, and meandering rock walls.

Off the Mattabesett Trail is a burial site marked only by a circle

of large stones, where the remains of smallpox victims were laid to

rest. Further north along the Metacomet Trail, a side trail brings

hikers to Hospital Rock, which bears the 1792 inscriptions of 66

smallpox victims.

Scattered through the landscape are remnants of the charcoal

mounds built by 19th century colliers who supplied charcoal for the

state’s once-thriving iron industry.

The legacy of our nation’s Civilian Conservation Corps remains

in the bridges, dams, ponds, and lookout towers they constructed

during the depression era of the 1930’s.

Hikers on the Metacomet Trail in Farmington can explore Will

Warren’s Den, a cave of huge jumbled rocks where Warren was

hidden by Indians after he was flogged for not attending church

and subsequently attempted to burn down the village of Farmington.

The trail corridors also harbor relatively undisturbed, unique

natural areas that provide critical habitat for a diverse range of

animal and plant species. And from the state Department of Environmental Protection, I understand that some of the state-listed

species along these two trails included yellow ladyslipper,

goldenseal, squirrel corn, eastern box turtle, and Jefferson salamander. These are all rare or endangered species that can be found

on the ridge tops.

Today, the trails themselves are threatened. In the early to mid20th century, permission to establish these footpaths was granted

on the strength of a handshake by the farmers and wood-lot owners

whose land the trails crossed.

Today, fully 75 percent of the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System

lies on private or quasi-public land, with only 25 percent of the

trails located on state-owned lands.

Those sections of trail that are on privately held property exist

only through the kind permission of the landowner. Few if any

legal agreements are in place.

The heightened economy of recent years has encouraged explosive development, often on lands that were once considered marginal, such as the ridge tops. As development pressure increases,

72

so does the very real threat of being unable to retain the trails’ continuity and integrity for future generations of hikers.

We have launched a comprehensive trails protection program

that we hope will provide permanent protection for the Blue-Blazed

Hiking Trail System. Metacomet and Mattabesett trails are the initial focus of this important initiative, which involves working in

partnership with all stakeholders along the trail corridors.

Stakeholders include individual and corporate property owners,

trail managers, local land trusts, municipal governing boards, and

land use agencies, regional planning agencies, and the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection.

Our own research and trail protection efforts during the past 2

years speak loudly to the need for H.R. 1814. I urge you to join

with me in support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Colson follows:]

Statement of Ann T. Colson, Director of Volunteers & Trails Coordinator,

Connecticut Forest and Park Association, on H.R. 1814

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Ann Colson. I am Director of Volunteers & Trails Coordinator for Connecticut Forest & Park Association, the private, nonprofit conservation organization that manages the 700-mile

Blue–Blazed Hiking Trail System in my beautiful state of Connecticut. I am here

this morning to testify in favor of H.R. 1814, the Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–

Mattabesett Trail Study Act of 2001.

The Act specifies that a feasibility study be conducted for the potential addition

to the National Trails System of the Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett

Trail extending approximately 260 miles through Connecticut, Massachusetts, and

New Hampshire. I would like to address the Connecticut sections of this multi-state

trail, and how they are an integral part of the envisioned 260-mile New England

Trail.

Let me say at the outset that we have been extremely gratified by the overwhelming public response in favor of the proposed feasibility study. Letters of support from Connecticut town officials and land use agencies along the trail corridor,

and from conservation organizations, trail managers, hiking groups, and individual

trail users, along with the endorsement of the entire Connecticut Congressional Delegation, are all testimony to the support of H.R. 1814.

Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA), founded in 1895, established the

first four of the Blue–Blazed Hiking Trails in 1929, including the Metacomet Trail,

which traverses the magnificent traprock ridges in the north central part of

Connecticut. In 1932 the Mattabesett Trail was added, following the ridgeline south

to Bluff Head in north Guilford.

When setting up the Blue–Blazed Hiking Trail System, the founding fathers also

recognized the need for continuing trail maintenance and therefore established a

corps of volunteers who would oversee the trails. In 1929 there were 250 miles of

Blue–Blazed Trails. Today there are more than 700 miles. This growth could not

have been sustained without the dedication of a veritable army of CFPA volunteers

who build, manage, and maintain the trails throughout the year. Twelve trail managers are assigned to the combined 108 miles of the Mattabesett and Metacomet

Trails, which are also overseen by the CFPA Trails Committee and supported by

CFPA professional staff.

These two trails pass through the state’s most diverse landscapes, from densely

populated urban centers to cool, forested woodlands, streams and ponds, past picturesque agricultural fields, and atop sheer cliff faces offering sweeping views across

Connecticut’s central valley. On a clear day, hikers on the Metacomet Trail can see

Long Island Sound to the south, and Mt. Tom in Massachusetts to the north. From

Bluff Head, the 360-degree viewshed includes the distant city buildings of Hartford,

our capitol city, and the shimmering blue expanse of Long Island Sound where it

meets Connecticut’s southern coast.

Unsurpassed beauty is not all that awaits the curious observer who hikes on these

trails. Fragments of Connecticut’s history can be found amongst the oaks and sugar

maples and white pines—forgotten cemeteries, tracks of former stagecoach routes,

caves used by ancient Native American tribal councils, abandoned quarries, old celVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:10 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74087.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
73

lar holes, and meandering rock walls. Off the Mattabesett Trail is a burial site,

marked only by a circle of large stones, where the remains of smallpox victims were

laid to rest. Further north, along the Metacomet Trail, a side trail brings hikers to

‘‘Hospital Rock,’’ which bears the 1792 inscriptions of 66 smallpox victims. Scattered

through the landscape are remnants of the charcoal mounds built by 19th century

colliers who supplied charcoal for the state’s once-thriving iron industry. The legacy

of our nation’s Civilian Conservation Corps remains in the bridges, dams, ponds,

and lookout towers they constructed during the depression era of the 1930s, many

of which are accessible along the trails. Hikers on the Metacomet Trail in Farmington can explore Will Warren’s Den, a cave of huge jumbled rocks where Warren

was hidden by Indians after he was flogged for not attending church and subsequently attempted to burn down the village of Farmington.

The trail corridors also harbor relatively undisturbed unique natural areas that

provide critical habitat for a diverse range of animal and plant species. One of the

distinguishing characteristics of Lamentation Mountain, across which the

Mattabesett Trail runs, is the presence of two state threatened plant species (restricted information on file with the Natural Diversity Database of the Natural Resources Center, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). Exhibit A,

attached to this testimony, describes Lamentation Mountain’s natural communities,

which are typical of those found on Connecticut’s traprock ridge system, the 75-mile

spine that is the framework for much of the Mattabesett Trail and the Metacomet

Trail.

Today the trails themselves are threatened.

In the early- to mid–20th Century, permission to establish these footpaths was

granted on the strength of a handshake by the farmers and woodlot owners whose

land the trails crossed. Today, fully 75% of the Blue–Blazed Hiking Trails System

lies on private or quasi-public land, with only 25% of the trails located on stateowned lands. Those sections of trail that are on privately held property exist only

through the kind permission of the landowner. Few, if any, legal agreements are

in place. The heightened economy of recent years has encouraged explosive development, often on lands that were once considered marginal, such as the ridgetops. As

development pressure increases, so does the very real threat of being unable to retain the trails’ continuity and integrity for future generations of hikers.

In 1999, CFPA launched a comprehensive trails protection program aimed at providing permanent protection for the Blue–Blazed Hiking Trail System. The

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails are the initial focus of this important initiative,

which involves working in partnership with all stakeholders along the trail corridors. Stakeholders include individual and corporate property owners, trail managers, local land trusts, municipal governing boards and land use agencies, regional

planning agencies, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,

which has jurisdiction over the state’s public forests and parks.

Our own research and trail protection efforts during the past two years speak

loudly to the need for H.R. 1814, the Metacomet–Monadnock–Sunapee–Mattabesett

Trail Study Act of 2001. I urge you to join with me and the entire Connecticut Congressional Delegation in support of H.R. 1814.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I yield the floor to questions.

[Attachments to Ms. Colson’s statement follow:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.

Ms. Solis?

Ms. SOLIS. Just to thank the witnesses for coming here today. I

found your testimony, all of you, quite interesting, and I look forward to working with you on these two pieces of legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Goode?

Mr. GOODE. No questions, except to thank each one for being

here.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Olver?

Mr. OLVER. I at this point want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

your attention and patience and hopefully your support. You have

already indicated that, in fact.

But I do want to say that I think you can see from the testimony

here that the two organizations, the Connecticut Forest and Park

Association and the Appalachian Mountain Club, represent the

critical universal joints through which the cooperative effort to provide public outdoor opportunities for the general public bring together the local land trusts and municipal conservation groups, the

regional and national conservation groups, and trail nonprofit organizations. And the state and Federal Governments both work

through those two organizations.

They are key to outdoor recreational opportunities in

Massachusetts and Connecticut.

And without them, and they of course will be and must be a part

of the feasibility work that is done with National Park Service, but

without them, we would be in far poorer shape, in those two states

at least.

Thank you for being here.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. And I thank the witnesses.

80

I live in Colorado, and I live on a ranch, where I can get on a

horse and I can go into the trail system and the national forests

from my house on horseback. And it is a terrific experience.

So I am a big supporter of trails and the meaning that trails

have.

Now, I don’t like it when you don’t allow horses on trails, so I

hope you allow horses on your trail as well.

Mr. OLVER. They wouldn’t like the top of the basalt ridges.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. They might not. They might not.

I also am a big fan of Booker T. Washington. I think he was a

national hero. I think he transcended race.

I understand your comments about how particularly for an African-American it is important, but I think most of us don’t think

whether he was African-American or not. He was a great American

hero.

And I want to thank Mr. Goode for bringing this to our attention.

Otherwise, we would not have known of the need here for this buffer zone that is there.

And your testimony, Ms. Johnson, was very eloquent, and we appreciate that.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. We will consider these bills, hopefully in the foreseeable future. And this has been an excellent background for us

to make hopefully a reasonable decision and hopefully a decision

that you all will be pleased with.

So thank you for coming. We thank for both of our Congressmen

for bringing it to our attention.

And this meeting stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A letter submitted for the record by Kevin Collins, Acting

Director, Conservation Policy, National Parks Conservation

Association, Washington, D.C., on H.R. 1456 follows:]

81

Æ