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

75-725 PS 2002

H.R. 1963

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

October 16, 2001

Serial No. 107-68

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(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

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

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 October 16, 2001 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delagate to Congress from the Virgin Islands ............................................................................................................... 3

Costello, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois, Prepared statement of .................................................................... 2

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 1

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

Statement of Witnesses:

Coomer, Bob, Superintendent of Historic Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois ................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Letter from The Honorable George H. Ryan, Governor, State of Illinois, submitted for the record ............................................................... 8

Soukup, Dr. Michael, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship

and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1963, TO

AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

ACT TO DESIGNATE THE ROUTE TAKEN BY

AMERICAN SOLDIER AND FRONTIERSMAN

GEORGE ROGERS CLARK AND HIS MEN

DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO

CAPTURE THE BRITISH FORTS AT

KASKASKIA AND CAHOKIA, ILLINOIS, AND

VINCENNES, INDIANA, FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL

TRAILS SYSTEM.

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

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

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good morning and welcome to the hearing

today. We have two panels that were scheduled to speak. Unfortunately, the Honorable Jerry Costello from Illinois is stuck in a

plane somewhere between Illinois and Washington, D.C. And so

won’t be able to meet. So, we are going to have to dispense with

Panel 1 and go straight to Panel 2 after the introductory remarks.

We will begin the Subcommittee on National Parks. Recreation

and Public Lands to hear testimony on H.R. 1963.

H.R. 2238, introduced by Congressman Harold Rogers, was originally scheduled for consideration today but it has been rescheduled

for this Thursday, October 18th.

H.R. 1963 introduced by Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois

would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of including the route taken by George RogVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:38 Aug 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\75725.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
2

ers Clark during the Revolutionary War as an addition to the National Trails System.

The mission of William Rogers Clark and his men in 1779 led to

Britain ceding what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of Minnesota. William Rogers Clark

was the elder brother of William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommitee on National parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee will come to

order. Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

will hear testimony on H.R. 1963.

H.R. 2238, introduced by Congressman Harold Rogers, was originally scheduled

for consideration today, but has been rescheduled for Thursday, October 18.

H.R. 1963, introduced by Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois, would authorize

the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of including the

route taken by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War as an addition

into the National Trails System.

The mission of William Rogers Clark and his men in 1779 led to Britain ceding

what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and the eastern portion of

Michigan. William Rogers Clark was the elder brother of William Clark of Lewis

and Clark fame.

I want to thank Congressmen Costello for introducing this bill and look forward

to today’s testimony. At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Costello be permitted to sit on the dias following his statement. Without

objection [PAUSE], so ordered.

I’d like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify on this bill,

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

Mr. RADANOVICH.I want to thank Mr. Costello for introducing

this bill and at the same time ask unanimous consent that Mr.

Costello be permitted to enter his remarks in the record. If there

is no objection, then so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

Statement of the Honorable Jerry F. Costello, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Illinois

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Christensen. I am pleased to

have the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1963, legislation I introduced to authorize

a study to include the path taken by George Rogers Clark into our National Trails

System.

George Rogers Clark was born in 1752, the second oldest of ten children, and the

older brother of William Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame.

During the Revolutionary War in 1778, Clark led his troops from Redstone, PA

to Kaskaskia, IL, which is in the Congressional District I represent. They surprised

Kaskaskia on the night of July 4, 1778 and occupied the fort and town without a

single shot being fired. Clark offered the French settlers in Kaskaskia the privileges

of American citizenship, and won the support of the French in region. He also won

the neutrality of the Native Americans.

This support was key as Clark led his troops on the final leg of their journey, as

they moved to overtake the British in Vincennes, Indiana. Banking on the element

of surprise, Clark led his troops across what is now the State of Illinois, from

Kaskaskia to Vincennes. The journey would normally take between five and six

days, but because of the freezing flood waters, the journey took 18 days. At times

in icy water up to their shoulders, it was Clark’s determined leadership that led his

men through the incredible midwinter journey.

Once arriving in Vincennes on February 23, 1779, Clark and his men forced the

British to surrender just two days later on February 25, 1779.

As a result of Clark’s outstanding military achievements, the British ceded a vast

area of land to the United States, which is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,

Wisconsin and a portion of Minnesota. His actions were paramount in the establishment of the upper Midwest.

3

The designation of the George Rogers Clark Trail would pay homage to an American hero who is infrequently recognized for his contributions to American history.

The designation would also promote tourism in three of Illinois’ State Historic Sites,

and draw visitors to retrace Clark’s historic path. Tourism is a growing and very

important industry to Southern Illinois, and establishing a National Trail would be

highly beneficial to the region.

I strongly support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in authorizing a study to designate the route of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War for study for potential addition to the National Trails System.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would like to call the witnesses forward today

on Panel 2. We have Michael Soukup who is the Associate Director

of the Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Division of the

National Parks Service. Good morning, Michael.

And also Bob Coomer, who is the Superintendent of Historic

Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois.

And forgive me. Please excuse me, Donna. I would like to give

time to the Ranking Member to make some remarks before you

begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly

wanted to at least make some opening remarks, since I am going

to have to leave the hearing to open up another briefing.

Today, as you have indicated, we will have testimony on

H.R. 1963 introduced by our colleague, Mr. Costello. The legislation provides for a study of the route used by George Rogers Clark

and his troops during the military campaign of 1778 and 1779 in

what is now Illinois and Indiana.

The military campaign conducted by George Rogers Clark is regarded as an important event in the Revolutionary War. The purpose of the trails’ study authorized in H.R. 1963 would be to determine whether portions of the route used in that campaign meet the

criteria for designation as a Natural Historic Trail.

I understand that the administration’s testimony will recommend

that the study be expanded to include an entire route of the military campaign, which seems to be a reasonable and logical request

for this Subcommittee to consider.

I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today. I promise you

I will read your testimony. I am sorry that I do have to leave to

attend another briefing. If I can get back, I will.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Mrs. Christensen. Are there any remarks from anybody else on the Committee? Mr. Hefley, any remarks? Mr. McGovern? No. Okay, thanks.

With that, then, we will go ahead and start with the panel. We

will begin with Mr. Soukup. Thank you and welcome back to the

Committee.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SOUKUP, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SOUKUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4

I appreciate the opportunity to present the Department of Interior’s views on H.R. 1963. This bill would amend the National

Trails Systems Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

study the route used by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forces at Kaskaskia and

Cahokia, Illinois and Vincennes, Indiana as a potential addition to

the National Trails System.

The Department supports H.R. 1963 with an amendment to clarify the boundary of the area to be studied. However, in light of the

President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the national park system, we will neither request funding for this study in this fiscal year, so as to focus available time and resources on completing previously authorized studies, nor be able to begin the study until at least fiscal year 2002.

There are 39 authorized studies that are still pending and we

only expect to complete a few of those this year. Furthermore, in

order to better plan for the future of our national parks, we believe

that the studies should carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance costs that would result from each alternative considered. Additionally, our support for this study legislation should not be interpreted to mean that the Department would

necessarily support designations that may be recommended by the

study.

H.R. 1963 calls for the completion of a study of the George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail. This trail traces the water

and overland route of 1778 and 1779 expedition of Lieutenant

Clark and his Virginia militia against the British in which he captured the British forts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia in what is now

Illinois, and twice captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana.

In 1778 Clark led a campaign into what became the Northwest

Territory and captured the British post at Kaskaskia and Cahokia

on the Mississippi River, and Vincennes on the Wabash River, although British forces from Detroit successfully recaptured the fort

at Vincennes late in 1778. In February of 1779, Clark marched

with about 170 men across 180 miles of frozen flooded plains, at

times wading in icy waters reaching their shoulders, to recapture

the fort at Vincennes. The mission took 3 weeks and is regarded

as one of the boldest in American history.

As a result of this campaign, Clark assured American control of

the Northwest Territory, a region that would include the States of

Ohio and Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and a portion of

Minnesota. In April 1989, at the request of former Congressman

Glenn Poshard, the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park

Service prepared a preliminary assessment of whether the routes

of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War would qualify for study as a Natural Historic Trail.

Based on the available information, the assessment concluded

that the routes taken by Clark in 1778 to 1779 may meet the criteria for National Historic Trails. The next step would be for Congress to authorize a study to determine if the route indeed met the

criteria and whether it would be suitable and feasible for establishment as a National Historic Trail.

The 1989 assessment suggested that if a formal study is authorized, that it would be appropriate to include not only the portions

5

of the campaign that took place in what is now Illinois and Indiana, but also Clark’s route down the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers

from the point of origin near Pittsburgh.

We recommend that H.R. 1963 be amended to clarify that the

boundaries of this study will include Clark’s entire route from near

Pittsburgh to Vincennes.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be happy to

answer any questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Soukup.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Soukup follows:]

Statement of Dr. Michael Soukup, Associate Director, Natural Resource

Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior

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

Interior’s views on H. R. 1963. This bill would amend the National Trails System

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the route used by George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at Kaskaskia

and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, as a potential addition to the National Trails System.

The Department supports H. R. 1963 with an amendment to clarify the boundary

of the area to be studied. However, in light of the President’s commitment to reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System,

we will neither request funding for this study in this fiscal year, so as to focus available time and resources on completing previously authorized studies, nor be able to

begin the study until at least fiscal year 2003, as there are 39 authorized studies

that are pending, and we only expect to complete a few of those this year. Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future of our national parks, we believe that

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

that would result from each alternative considered. Additionally, our support of this

study legislation should not be interpreted to mean that the Department would necessarily support designations that may be recommended by the study.

H. R. 1963 calls for the completion of a study of the George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail. This trail traces the water and overland route of the 1778 and

1779 expedition of Lieutenant Colonel George Rogers Clark and his Virginia militia

against the British in which he captured the British forts at Kaskaskia and

Cahokia, in what is now Illinois, and twice captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana. George Rogers Clark was one of the prominent figures of the American frontier.

Born in Virginia in 1752, he migrated to the wilderness beyond the Appalachians

in 1772. By 1775 he had gained a position of leadership in the Kentucky region.

In 1778, Clark led a campaign into what became the Northwest Territory and captured the British posts at Kaskaskia and Cahokia on the Mississippi River and Vincennes on the Wabash River, although British forces from Detroit successfully recaptured the fort at Vincennes late in 1778.

In February of 1779 Clark marched with about 170 men across 180 miles of frozen, flooded plains, at times wading in icy waters reaching their shoulders, to recapture the fort at Vincennes. The mission took three weeks and is regarded as one

of the boldest in American history. As a result of this campaign, Clark assured

American control of the Northwest Territory - a region that would include the states

of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and a portion of Minnesota.

In April of 1989, at the request of former Congressman Glenn Poshard, the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service prepared a preliminary assessment of whether the routes of George Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War

would qualify for study as a National Historic Trail. Based on available information,

the assessment concluded that the routes taken by Clark in 1778–1779 may meet

the criteria for National Historic Trails. The next step would be for Congress to authorize a study to determine if the route indeed meets the criteria and whether it

would be suitable and feasible for establishment as a National Historic Trail.

The 1989 assessment suggested that if a formal study is authorized that it would

be appropriate to include not only the portions of the campaign that took place in

what is now Illinois and Indiana, but also Clark’s route down the Monongahela and

Ohio Rivers from the point of origin near Pittsburgh. We recommend that H. R.

1963 be amended to specify that the boundaries of the study will include Clark’s

entire route from near Pittsburgh to Vincennes.

6

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer

any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will go on to the testimony of the next witness and then open it up for questions. Mr. Coomer, welcome to the

Committee and please begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BOB COOMER, SUPERINTENDENT OF HISTORIC SITES, ILLINOIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENCY,

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

Mr. COOMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.

A George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail would authentically mark and appropriately commemorate a series of especially

important heroic episodes that occurred during the western phase

of the American Revolution.

In the summer of 1778, George Rogers Clark was a 25-year-old

captain in the Virginia militia when he planned and then boldly

launched an expedition to seize control of Great Britain’s western

empire. Clark gathered volunteers near the site of Louisville in the

present State of Kentucky, floated his small army on flatboats

down the Ohio River, and landed with 175 men at the southern tip

of what is now the State of Illinois.

After a grueling 6-day overland march, Clark and his men

reached the Mississippi River village of Kaskaskia on July 4th of

1778. With a population of about 1,000, Kaskaskia was the largest

of several old French towns across from what is now St. Louis.

The village had been abandoned by its British garrison and

Clark occupied it without firing a shot. Assisted by Kaskaskia

French residents, he and his men then managed to occupy other

small villages on the Mississippi, including Cahokia. A party also

was sent to Vincennes, which again fell to the Americans without

resistance. Clark’s victory is especially significant as the first

American success against the British Empire in the West.

The British struck back in the fall of 1778 with a

counterexpedition from Detroit that recaptured Vincennes. Realizing that he must act or be cut off from his eastern sources of supply, Clark mounted an expedition against the British at Vincennes.

On February 5th, 1779, he left Kaskaskia with a force of about 150

men, and embarked on an 18-day forced march to Vincennes across

what is now southern Illinois.

The march has been described as the one of the most heroic and

dramatic in the annals of the American Revolution. Clark and his

men spent days wading through the icy waters that covered the

prairies in places, and passed their nights on knolls protruding

from the surrounding mud. They covered 180 miles altogether, the

last few miles in water up to their shoulders, and attacked the fort

at Vincennes in the middle of the night on February 23rd. Two

days later the British surrendered.

Some historians have argued that without Clark’s exploits, England might not have ceded the entire Northwest to the United

States when the peace treaty that ended the revolution was signed

in 1783. At the very least, George Rogers Clark and his men struck

a heroic blow for American independence that would be most apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:38 Aug 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75725.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
7

propriately commemorated by the designation of a George Rogers

Clark Northwest Campaign Trail.

Establishing such trail in Illinois would greatly benefit programs

and promote events that are associated with State historic sites including Fort Kaskaskia, Fort de Chartres and Cahokia Courthouse

State Historic Sites.

The trail would also provide opportunities for Illinois communities to establish interpretative programs to educate and attract

visitors. In addition to the historic interpretative opportunities, the

economic impact associated with tourism and historic site visitation

is very important to this region of Illinois.

More than 40 percent of the visitors surveyed in Illinois report

their first interest has been historic sites, programs, and events.

The George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail in Illinois will

help preserve history and provide economic support for this region

of southern Illinois.

With that I conclude my comments, and will be more than happy

to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coomer follows:]

Statement of Bob Coomer, Superintendent of Historic Sites, Illinois

Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, Illinois

A ‘‘George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail’’ would authentically mark

and appropriately commemorate a series of especially important and heroic episodes

that occurred during the western phase of the American Revolution.

In the summer of 1778, George Rogers Clark was a 25-year-old captain in the Virginia militia when he planned and then boldly launched an expedition to seize control of Great Britain’s western empire. Clark gathered volunteers near the site of

Louisville in the present state of Kentucky, floated his small army on flatboats down

the Ohio River, and landed with 175 men at the southern tip of what is now the

state of Illinois. After a grueling six-day overland march, Clark and his men reached

the Mississippi River village of Kaskaskia on July 4, 1778. With a population of

about 1,000, Kaskaskia was the largest of several old French towns across from

what is now St. Louis. The village had been abandoned by its British garrison, and

Clark occupied it without firing a shot. Assisted by Kaskaskia’s French residents,

he and his men then managed to occupy other small villages on the Mississippi, including Cahokia. A party also was sent to Vincennes, which again fell to the Americans without resistance. Clark’s victory is especially significant as the first American success against the British empire in the West.

The British struck back in the fall of 1778 with a counter-expedition from Detroit

that recaptured Vincennes. Realizing that he must act or be cut off from his eastern

sources of supply, Clark mounted an expedition against the British at Vincennes.

On February 5, 1779, he left Kaskaskia with a force of about 150 men and embarked on an 18-day forced march to Vincennes across what is now southern Illinois. The march has been described as Tone of the most heroic and dramatic in the

annals of the American Revolution.’’ Clark and his men spent days wading through

the icy waters that covered the prairies in places and passed their nights on knolls

protruding from the surrounding mud. They covered 180 miles altogether, the last

few miles in water up to their shoulders, and attacked the fort at Vincennes in the

middle of the night on February 23. Two days later, the British surrendered.

Some historians have argued that without Clark’s exploits England might not

have ceded the entire northwest to the United States when the peace treaty ending

the Revolution was signed in 1783. At the very least, George Rogers Clark and his

men struck a heroic blow for American independence that would be most appropriately commemorated by the designation of a ‘‘George Rogers Clark Northwest

Campaign Trail.’’

Establishing a George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign Trail in Illinois would

greatly benefit programs and promotion of Fort Kaskaskia, Ft. de Chartres and

Cahokia Courthouse State Historic Sites. The trail would also provide opportunities

for other Illinois communities to establish interpretive programs to educate and attract visitors.

8

In addition, to the historic interpretation opportunities, the economic impact associated with tourism and historic site visitation is very important to this region of

Illinois. More than 40% of visitors surveyed in Illinois report their first interest is

historic sites and programs.

The George Rogers Clark Northwest Campaign trail in Illinois will help preserve

history and provide economic support throughout Southern Illinois.

[A letter attached to Mr. Coomer’s statement follows:]

9

10

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Coomer.

Mr. McGovern do you have any questions at all? No. Mr. Hefley?

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is the trail like now? I mean if we do this, would this be

a trail designated along highways or county roads or what? There

is obviously no—no designated trail at this point.

Mr. COOMER. There is not a trail currently marked. From information that I have researched there are—the clear designation of

the trail, there are three areas that have been identified. This is

something that as a part of the study should be researched further.

My feelings are it would pass in association with State routes or

Federal highways linking really the southern part of Illinois near

Fort Massic near what is Metropolis, Illinois, over to Kaskaskia

and then back across the south central part of the State through

to Vincennes, but would follow, as you say, State routes or Federal

highways.

Mr. HEFLEY. So basically it wouldn’t be like a trail system in the

West where people get on horseback and ride the trail or hike it

or bike it. It wouldn’t be that kind of trail. It would be a trail which

had historical markers along the way of a highway?

Mr. COOMER. I believe it could be either. And the study I think

would probably provide that sort of support. But I might—in keeping with other trails that are being established in this region of Illinois, it would probably be very closely aligned to those.

Mr. HEFLEY. Certainly Mr. Clark’s exploits are worthy in history;

it is an important thing. But you know, I am reminded that in

practically every square foot of America it seems there is a likelihood somebody fought some kind of battle for some reason on it.

How does the Park Service—we flood you with these requests for

these studies, and part of the reason is that it is important to people back home. But part of the reason is that it is—the things that

really should be a part of our park system we want in the park system and the genuine historic and national phenomena that are out

there that we want to preserve.

How do you all look at it? If we ask you to do a study, do you

interpret that as meaning this is something Congress wants so we

better justify it? Or do you look at it as, well, you know, if it

doesn’t have the significance of something else—my great grandfather joined the Illinois Calvary in the first year of the Civil War.

Maybe we should designate the trail he took from Illinois to southern Missouri where he was captured before the end of the first

year. Didn’t have a glorious career, but it was important to the

Hefley family. That is probably not something we ought to put in

the park system.

So do you come back to us sometimes and tell us, no, we really

don’t think this ought to be in the parks system? How do you look

at it?

Mr. SOUKUP. Yes, sir. We do have that problem. And we do have

a mechanism for trying to be objective and fairly clinical about

making these decisions. We have established criteria—we have

three major criteria that look at the historical significance as well

as the feasibility and the practicality of such a designation.

So we have been, I think, fairly rigorous in applying the criteria

across the board. And sometimes we do come back and say it

11

should have some other kind of designation; perhaps not a national

park, perhaps a local or State or county site for a level of significance that might be at the local or county level.

The utility of the 1989 study I think is important here. We did

the preliminary look at measuring up this site against the three

major criteria that we use. And the site was recommended to be

appropriate under these criteria.

Now, the second step, which H.R. 1963 puts us into that step— that is, we would then look how feasible it is and whether or not

it makes sort of economic and logistical sense. And, you know, the

first question that you ask: Is the site intact enough or is the trail

intact enough?

Those kinds of questions will be studied after this legislation is

passed, if it should be passed, and those decisions will be looked

at very, very intensely with a lot of stakeholder interest and things

like that.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I hope the Park Service would level with us

on this, because you are the experts and you know much better

than we do sitting here whether something really fits and whether

it really is feasible. I think these kinds of things add to the mosaic

of our country.

I remember my father was a great historian, and when we would

go on vacation trips—and I can’t tell you the number of times the

brakes went on and we swerved to the side of the road to read a

historical marker because we might miss something. But that was

good. That was the—that enriched the trips.

And so I think these things are good, but I want them to be significant. I want them to be things that really do make sense in the

Park Service. And you can tell us that. So I appreciate your coming

today.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just if

you could go through the three criteria, please.

Mr. SOUKUP. I think that I have them here. Let me read them

out to you. I thought that I had them here.

Here they are. The first criteria: Was the trail established by historic use and is it historically sufficient as a result of that use? Is

the trail’s location sufficiently known to permit evaluation of public

recreation and history interest potential?

Second criteria. Is the route of national significance with respect

to any of the several broad facets of American history, including

military campaigns? Has the historic use of the trail had a farreaching effect on broad patterns of American culture?

And, No. 3, does the route have significant potential for public

recreational use or historical interest based upon the historic interpretation and appreciation?

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on this. This

kind of spurs some ideas I might have for a trail that we would

like to see done in our area. But I am sure that this is worthy of

recognition.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I guess I have a couple of questions and a few comments. I appreciate you holding this hearing. As for Congressman

Hefley, I wanted to point out that the only place where we do trails

12

for people like your grandpa is in the West. If it is a Civil War site,

then we will do it on an individual basis.

In the Midwest we seem to have a different battle going on, and

I kind of am a broken record on some of this, but it is a frustration.

The Park Service said no to us on the Lincoln site in Springfield.

The Park Service said no to us on the underground railroad site

in Cincinnati, basically because there were powerful people that

wanted it in New York State. They said no on the Reagan boyhood

home. Most of the noes we have received in this Committee have

been in the Midwest. It is partly because in the Midwest we

haven’t federalized most of the land. In the West, a lot of the land

is federalized; therefore, relatively more pristine conditions. Some

of these things were for a variety of reasons.

But those of us in the Midwest—and sometimes I get frustrated

because our history actually in some cases is earlier, at least contemporaneous, depending on what type of site we are looking at.

But often we haven’t preserved it as well. So in some of the ability

to utilize the sites, it is a different mix than they have in the West.

But it is clear that in the Midwest we have a couple of holes and

this is one of them.

That the war in the West in the American Revolution was critical, that had we not won, particularly at Vincennes and been able

to hold it, lose it and get it back, that the whole next round, which

was the Northwest Territory, would not have happened.

I have been working on an additional study where we already

have several history sites, like in this trail there are historic sites

anchoring the ends that—on Anthony Wayne’s battles where the

two largest defeats of American armies have occurred, the Harmar

and St. Clair defeats. We hear a lot about Sitting Bill and all of

these guys in the West where maybe 75 or 150 people were killed.

Here you had armies of 800 and 1,600 being wiped out and couldn’t

control the Northwest. Just like the underground railroad, certain

highways.

One of my questions is, does the National Park Service, when we

propose the trails, do you look at overall gaps in the system, in

other words; or is it predominantly driven by what we come up

with and then you analyze it in that way?

Mr. SOUKUP. Well, I think we are beginning to realize that there

are larger themes that sort of need flushing out. And I think you

will see a lot more emphasis in our studies these days on the entire

picture of things, and perhaps this would fit in. I think this would,

by any criteria—I think if it meets this criteria it would be fine.

But there is a lot of emphasis now on providing a larger picture.

The underground railroad is a good example.

There are very few individual sites that are very intact and demonstrable, but the entire theme is an important one. And again,

I think you will see a lot of deference given to that larger picture

kind of thing in the future.

Mr. SOUDER. For example, this summer I both went the Sante

Fe Trail and also the Great Platt River Road. It is fascinating. But

for the most part you can’t stay on the trail all of the way. Some

of the sites are better preserved and some need better preservation.

But in the West, literally, when you start to look at our trail system map, they are all over the place. In the Midwest, there are

13

clear gaps as far as the historical significance of which this would

help cover.

But when you will look at a trail, in this case I believe the drafting of it is fairly tightly defined around the crucial first campaign

that actually was the most significant, because if he hadn’t won the

first one—kind of the remnants of the battles that occurred thereafter and the jockeying for position of the next few years.

You have referred to a study that suggested that the trail might

start in Pittsburgh. You can also argue that the trail shouldn’t end

at the first battle at Vincennes, because Clark didn’t just disappear

after that point.

Do you think it makes more sense to have tightly defined trails

like this one was, where, okay, here are the three places, it is a

given year, and you have a construct; or do you think it is best to

start with the origins; or does that vary by type of trail?

Mr. SOUKUP. Well, that is—. Mr. SOUDER. In other words, like the Oregon Trail, Lewis and

Clark Trail. Clearly, in Indiana we want the site where William

Clark started. Virginia wants Monticello included. But, for example, in the California Trail or the Mormon Trail, do you start back

where they started, go to the start of the trail, or how do you determine where the trail starts?

Mr. SOUKUP. That is the art of the study that we will do. And

I think it will look at a bunch of—a range of alternatives. And historians qualified in this kind of assessment will take these questions and parse them through in great detail and come back with

a series of alternatives that would then, you know, be something

that Congress could take a look at and decide which one they favor.

You can do it many different ways. And the historic fabric that

is left and the tangible trail areas and things like that, all of that

will sort of be looked at and evaluated as feasible alternatives.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one other question? I

know my time is up. I have had some concern as I have looked at

the trail system and would hope that maybe the Park Service could

come back to us with some sort of a recommendation. Internally

you have to have some thoughts like this. But it looks to me—this

came up in some of the western trails, that what happens is people

start going a certain direction, they hear of another angle and they

start off on that angle; then that gets really muddy, so they went

over this way. And pretty soon your trail has many—it is all over

the place, with a proliferation of roads by it.

Is there a way that we can say, for example, if we did this: that

there is the primary concentration and the one of greatest significance, and then there are auxiliary parts. In other words, Pittsburgh, where Clark gets organized to the launching point may be

an auxiliary; then you have the primary, and then you have the follow-up. So that there are some—politicians wouldn’t like that, they

would all like to have be primary. But some sort of acknowledgment of what was the key thing of national historic significance

and what were the things that kind of pre- and post- led to that?.

Mr. SOUKUP. That is what the historians will do. And whether

or not the beginning of the expedition at Pittsburgh, it would seem

to me that that would be part of the whole package, that you would

really want to highlight the designation.

14

But there will be a tremendous amount of discussion of what

really is the event, what is significant about it, and what would be

the alternatives; to present that to the American public in the larger context.

Mr. SOUDER. Because, for example, there you may have a site,

but not a trail; a site that leads as a preliminary and sites after,

but the trail would be the thing of the period where it was most

nationally significant, not the—otherwise from Pittsburgh to southwest Illinois—I mean, have you got a whole other proliferation of

things that really weren’t significant during that transit point,

when the army was marching that was significant in the transit

point.

Mr. SOUKUP. I think it can be done in a fashion that highlighted

the expedition which is a major event, as far as I can tell, and also

lead people to the ancillary events and things that would be something that would be important but not really detract from the idea

this is a trail established on this historic event. All of those things

will be looked at over a period of years with historians and local

stakeholders and things like that. I think the product will be something that we can take forward in Congress.

Mr. SOUDER. I would hope, too, that the Vincennes, the Clark

National Historical Park, and other sites in Illinois that are already part of the park system would be the anchors. That is one

way to not have cost overburden our system is to use our existing

structures in conjunction with that and not have a proliferation of

lots of costs as we do these type of things.

Mr. SOUKUP. The ends are done. And now there is an opportunity

to put it together and get some sense of the magnitude of the

event.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to thank Mr. Coomer for his leadership.

Without the help of State agencies and locally driving these things,

they would never happen. So thank you for coming today and being

part of this, and Mr. Costello and others for their leadership.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Udall, do you have any questions?

I do have a couple of questions. Mr. Soukup, do you ever when

you do these studies, do you ever deny the study based on maintenance backlog for the Park Service; or do you approve and then

come back later and say, well, you know, there is—we have a maintenance backlog and we can’t do this right now? How does that

work?

Mr. SOUKUP. Well, in terms of queuing up the studies, if Congress provides legislation, we will do the study. The problem that

I think you are referring to is right now that we have sort of a

backlog of studies. We have 39 pending studies and they just take

a while to get all of those feasible alternatives or nonfeasible alternatives studied by all parties interested. It does take a while. But

it is my understanding that once a study is initiated, we apply the

criteria, we do the study, and then we make it available to Congress, and Congress looks at the alternatives and decides whether

or not to take action.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But you never recommend—well, you do have

an opinion when you do the study.

Mr. SOUKUP. Yes.

15

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you think it is a viable project but, because

of maintenance backlog, you are saying no?

Mr. SOUKUP. I don’t think that—I would have to get back to you

on that. I don’t think that would be our position. Our position

would be these are the alternatives, these are the costs.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Okay.

Mr. SOUKUP. Certainly the Department may have something to

say about that, or the administration.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Okay. Mr. Coomer, what is your vision of this?

From the West, Mark was mentioning earlier—it is a little bit different concept I think in the Midwest. What do you hope to have,

markers along highways or—I know there are three spots that are

pretty important in between the trails that kind of are landmarks.

Is this a bike trail? Is this something—I am not sure I understand

the concept of it being in the national trail system.

Mr. COOMER. I am not exactly sure. I think the study would provide clarification along these lines.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Maybe if I could ask, then, what you hope

would come from this.

Mr. COOMER. I would like to see it come as close to the trail as

we can possibly make it. From what I gather, from what I understand, that needs to be researched further. There are three trails

that have been identified. And I think there just needs to be a little

more study done before that is determined.

But what is critical, as you indicate, we have got other points in

Illinois. Fort Kaskaskia, specifically the Cahokia Courthouse up in

Cahokia, and then going across to Vincennes. The pieces I think

are there. It is a matter of being able to link these, market these,

provide opportunities for other communities to take advantage of

this opportunity.

I think that is the real benefit from our standpoint. In southern

Illinois, tourism is a major force. The opportunities to take advantage of something of this kind of national significance.

There was a question of criteria. We see various historic aspects

having regional significance, State significance, national significance. This is certainly a national significant site. The opportunity

to promote that, to market that, that this trail would bring with

it, I think is just an excellent opportunity resource.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Any other questions from any

other members?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief comment on

your question?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. That as someone who just this summer tried to go

on some of these trails, when you take the Sante Fe Trail, most of

the time—it is probably certainly one of the most famous, along

with the Oregon Trail, where I tried to do it on the Flat River

Road, that you are not always along the trail. Anymore than you

are in Indiana and Illinois. That the road systems—people have irrigated differently in their farms. And, in fact, other than in Congressman Udall’s district, there are hardly any ruts left, and it is

because it is in the park, in the Pecos Park. There are ruts there.

The only remaining trade facilities are in Pecos—which is now used

16

as a Park Service building, which needs to be converted back to its

original intent—and one in Sante Fe.

What you have is, you can buy these books or you can get the

stuff from the Park Service that will tell you where the sites are,

but it is not a continuous thing that you can read or even follow

on the highway. But you can, through the different sites connect

it together.

Similarly, on Flat River Road, it is very hard to see some of the

different angles when you read the journals. But it is harder to duplicate in the Midwest because you have more buildings, not necessary in some of the rural areas, and some more distortion of the

landscape. But I would argue that even our most famous trails are

hardly perfect in trying to find or connect together.

Mr. HEFLEY. I think you are absolutely right about that. Bents

Fort, I don’t know if you got to Bents Fort. Bents Fort is a wonderful reconstructed fort. That is not the original fort but it is the

original location. It is at La Junta, Colorado on the Sante Fe Trail.

It is a wonderful reconstruction. If you are ever out there you need

to go.

Mr. SOUDER. I took the Cimarron cutoff.

Mr. HEFLEY. You are absolutely right. That is why I raised the

question early on about whether this would be the kind of trail

that you have in some places in the West, where you are trying to

tie the trail systems together, so you can start on the East Coast

and go to California on a trail, or whether it is something along

highways; both of which, by the way, are important. Even in many

cases if there is nothing really there from that time, to stand in

front of a historic marker that says this is where Clark fought

such-and-such a battle, and to look over the land and get kind of

the feeling.

I can get myself lost, and I almost smell the smoke and hear the

cannons sometimes with just that kind of experience. So those are

worthy experiences, too, as well as—because we are never going to

put them all back together again, that is for sure. There are places

in the West, because we don’t get any rain, where you do have the

tracks of the Oregon Trail and the Sante Fe Trail. But in the East,

you change very quickly. And I think both are important.

Mr. SOUDER. Could I make one other comment? One of our other

problems in the reconstruction is that much of the western history

is a little later, so there are more journals and trying to track the

precise locations where Clark went is a little more difficult. We

know we have Vincennes, and you can feel the battle there. We

know that we have the earlier sites in Illinois.

But it will be a little harder to piece together the in-between

parts, because in the western trails we have just tons of journals.

In the trading journals they have everythin, what they carried, and

so it is a little bit more difficult process, because we tend to be

back about 50 to 100 years earlier. And this has really shown up

in the Native American sites where we have so little documentation and in the West where there was a fascination with the disappearing Native Americans. So there were more pictures; photography had been developed.

17

And it isn’t that we don’t have equal Native American history

east of the Mississippi, but we don’t have as much documentation,

which is more of a challenge.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Any other questions?

Ms. SOLIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Is it my

understanding that the law requires us to have a continuous trail,

or that that be the criteria, that there be a beginning and an end,

or are there sections where just—in the examples I am hearing in

Committee, that you might have certain spots that don’t lead anywhere, but that is an important site.

Mr. SOUKUP. I think the reality of this trail would be that there

are areas that are pretty much highway now. In fact, I think the

earlier expedition followed what roads there were. And those in

many cases had been paved over and become part of the road system.

I think what you may find in this situation is sort of a series of

different kinds of segments of trail. There may be parts that are

documentable as part of the trail that haven’t been made part of

the road system.

Certainly there are two street parks that have been established

for those two forts, Fort Massic and Kaskaskia.

So there are pieces that are there in different levels of preservation. And a good alternative will take advantage of those sites

where you could actually hike the trail. There are parts of it that

you can identify and other parts of it will be accessible by car, with

road signs and pull-offs and that kind of thing. So I am sure there

is going to be a potential association of all of those things should

it be a recommended site.

Ms. SOLIS. Just lastly, what type of community consultation process do you adhere to in deciding whether or not this trail is worthy

to be recognized?

Mr. SOUKUP. That will be a big part of the process. The communities, the local communities, all of the affected stakeholders, will

have a chance to publicly comment in private consultation. The

idea is to look and see what is feasible and what is supportable in

the communities, and there is a long process of that. That is one

of reasons it takes us years to do these studies.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Any other questions? If not, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ