U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

42–393 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE A NEW

CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS TO BE

KNOWN AS NATIONAL DISCOVERY TRAILS, TO

AUTHORIZE THE AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL

AS THE FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513,

A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS

SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT

OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 588 AND H.R. 1513—TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

TRAILS SYSTEM ACT

JUNE 10, 1997—WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–22

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held June 10, 1997—Washington, DC .................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

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

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

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

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah, prepared statement ........................................................................ 2

Pickett, Hon. Owen B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 25

Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ................................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 11

Statements of witnesses:

Joslin, Robert C., Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service .................................... 18

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 68

Lillard, David, President, American Hiking Society ..................................... 26

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 73

Lock, Leonard E. ............................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 102

Lukei, Mr. Reese, Jr., National Coordinator, American Discovery Trail

Society ............................................................................................................ 27

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 81

Stevenson, Katherine H., Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnership, National Park Service ....................................... 17

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 53

Theis, Bill, Member, S.T.O.P. (Stop Taking Our Properties) Steering Committee ............................................................................................................. 29

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 92

Additional material supplied:

Bratton, Richard V., Mayor, Green Mountain Falls, CO .............................. 77

Dudley, Ellen and Eric Seaborg, Members of the original team that

scouted the American Discovery Trail route .............................................. 50

News-Dispatch, Sept. 5, 1997 .......................................................................... 101

Settler’s Advocate, May 1, 1997 ...................................................................... 100

H.R. 588 ............................................................................................................. 38

H.R. 1513 ........................................................................................................... 47

S. Res. 57 ........................................................................................................... 95
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE A

NEW CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE

TRAILS TO BE KNOWN AS NATIONAL DISCOVERY TRAILS, TO AUTHORIZE THE

AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL AS THE

FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513, A BILL

TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT

OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

presiding.

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public

Lands convenes this hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 588, the

National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R. 1513, the Lincoln

National Historic Trail Act.

The first bill is H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of

1997, introduced by Mr. Bereuter and cosponsored by many of our

colleagues, which would amend the National Trails Systems Act of

1968 by creating a new category of long-distance national trails

and authorizing the American Discovery Trail as the first trail in

this new category.

[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr.

Weller, to amend the National Trails Act of 1968 by designating

the Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of Illinois.

[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the National Trails System Act of 1968, we should reflect briefly on the

impact this legislation has had. From the initial recognition of the

Appalachian Trail in the eastern United States and the Pacific

Crest Trail of the western United States, the National Trails System today encompasses over 37,000 miles of trails in 45 States,
2

consisting of 20 congressionally designated, nationally scenic and

historic trails, administered by the National Park Service, the U.S.

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition,

there are over 800 recognized national recreation trails that do not

require congressional authorization, which are administered by

local, State and private organizations after designations by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture.

H.R. 588 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 to

establish a new congressionally authorized trail category. National

discovery trails, which will be extended contiguous to interstate

trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and travel opportunities. The national discovery trails would intertwine national, cultural and historic resources and include metropolitan, urban, rural

and back country regions of the Nation. The most unique provision

of this new trail category is that there would be no Federal acquisition of land and administration would be bottom up, with local

public involvement and local and State governments supporting the

trails with only technical assistance to be provided by Federal

agencies.

Finally, H.R. 588 would designate the first national discovery

trail, the 6,300-mile American Discovery Trail, which would extend

through 15 States, from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to

Point Reyes National Seashore in California.

H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic Trail in

the State of Illinois as a component of the National Trails System

to extend 350 miles from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River,

generally following the Illinois River and the Illinois-Michigan

Canal Heritage corridor. This channel would promote Abraham

Lincoln’s legacy to Illinois and would emphasize the important, existing historic and cultural sites along the route. H.R. 1513 would

also require an additional study to extend the Lincoln National

Historic Trail down the Sangamon River from Beardstown to

Springfield, Illinois.

We look forward to the testimony that will be received this morning on these bills, and I will recognize Mr. Bereuter, the sponsor

of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor of H.R. 1513. Also, Mr.

Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce the American Discovery

Trail Society. But before I do that, I recognize my friend from Minnesota.

[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes this hearing to

receive testimony on H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R.

1513, the Lincoln National Historic Trail Act.

The first bill is H.R. 588, ‘‘The National Discovery Trails Act of 1997,’’ introduced

by Mr. Bereuter and co-sponsored by many of our colleagues, would amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543), by creating a new category

of long-distance national trail, and authorizing the American Discovery Trail (ADT)

as the first trail in this new category.

The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr. Weller to amend the National

Trails System Act of 1968, by designating ‘‘The Lincoln National Historic Trail in

the State of Illinois.’’

As we approach the 30th Anniversary of the National Trails System Act of 1968

we should reflect briefly on the impact this legislation has had. From the initial recognition of The Appalachian Trail in the Eastern United States and The Pacific
3

Crest Trail in the Western United States, the National Trails System today encompasses over 37,000 miles of trails in 45 states, consisting of 20 Congressionally designated national scenic and historic trails, administered by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, there

are over 800 recognized national recreation trails, that do not require Congressional

authorization, which are administered by local, state and, private organizations,

after designation by the Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Agriculture.

H.R. 538 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 to establish a new

Congressionally authorized trail category, National Discovery Trails, which will be

extended, continuous, interstate trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and

travel opportunities. The National Discovery Trails would intertwine natural, cultural, and historic resources and include metropolitan, urban, rural and backcountry

regions of the Nation. The most unique provision of this new trail category is that

there is to be no Federal acquisition of land, and the administration would be ‘‘bottom up’’ with local public involvement and local and state governments supporting

these trails, with only technical assistance to be provided by Federal agencies. Finally, H.R. 588 would designate the first National Discovery Trail, the 6,300 mile

American Discovery Trail, which would extend through 15 states from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in California.

H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of Illinois as a component of the National Trails System. The trail would extend 350

miles from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, generally following the Illinois

River and the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would promote Abraham Lincoln’s legacy to Illinois and the Nation, and would emphasize important existing historic and cultural sites along the route.

H.R. 1513 would also require an additional study to extend the Lincoln National

Historic Trail down the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield, Illinois.

We look forward to the testimony that we will receive this morning on these bills,

and I recognize Mr. Bereuter, the sponsor of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor

of H.R. 1513. Also, Mr. Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce Mr. Lukei of the

American Discovery Trail Society.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome

the witnesses and especially our colleagues, Mr. Bereuter, Mr.

Weller and others that are here to offer their support.

I understand—earlier this session, Congressman Schaefer and I

got together, and we have an informal group known as the Congressional Trails Caucus. This is a week in which there is a lot of

focus of attention on these trails. Also, I understand there is a

group in town this week concerned about other matters that have

some impact on this.

In any case, I would just like to point out to the Chairman, I

think it is prudent to have hearings and to move forward the issue

that the American Discovery Trail has been subjected to, an overall

study, so we have the benefit of the Park Service views on this, and

analysis; and that will be very helpful, if and when, and I hope we

do move forward with it.

I would just suggest that these trails are an increasingly important part of our recreational and cultural experience, Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware.

I note that, in my community, I have been invited to speak before a religious group that is celebrating its 150th anniversary with

regards to the beginning of a trip. I am referring, of course, to the

Mormon experience, and their role in terms of our culture and our

community and building our community. In any case, those trails

have been designated; I think we see them as important.

We have all sorts of opportunities for recreational trails. I myself

use those types of trails extensively in and around our area. This

weekend I was out biking for 40 miles on one of those. Yes, I made

it back and forth, Mr. Chairman. In any case, I think they are

going to play these green fingers and the opportunity to in fact use
4

those resources as a very important aspect, as is the impact that

these designations have on the adjacent lands and the impact, for

instance, in terms of individuals’ concerns about that, so we have

to be cognizant of both.

I think this offers the opportunity for true partnerships with

State governments, local governments, in terms of providing recreational and the identification of cultural and historic resources;

and I especially want to commend my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, who

has been working on this for about 5 or 6 years, for his continuity

of interest and effort and want to support him and Mr. Schaefer,

who is my cochairman, or cochair of this informal group known as

the Trails Caucus. We want to work with folks, and I appreciate—

and I think most do—the fact you focused on this hearing today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota, and in my many years of serving on this

committee with the gentleman from Minnesota, we have looked at

a lot of trails. We did the Great Western Trail, extending from

Mexico to Canada, up to the Rocky Mountains, and this is a very

interesting thing we are doing in America at this particular time.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, we are privileged

to have you here. We will hear from you first; then the gentleman

from Illinois, Mr. here to have you here. We will hear from you

first; then the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Weller.

The time is yours, sir.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. BEREUTER. Chairman Hansen, Congressman Vento, Congressman Jones, and members of the subcommittee, it is homecoming week for me. I spent my first two terms on this subcommittee. Although this is my first appearance as a witness in the

Walter Jones Hearing Room, it must give you special satisfaction,

Congressman.

I would like to begin by thanking you very much for scheduling

this hearing and giving me an opportunity to express the case for

the passage of H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act, which

I reintroduced on February 5, 1997. I first introduced this legislation during the 104th Congress as H.R. 3250.

I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional display of

support, H.R. 588 has already attracted a bipartisan mix of more

than 50 cosponsors—and I might say, this is without any effort or

one-to-one, person-to-person lobbying on my part. These cosponsors

represent both rural and urban districts and cover very diverse geographic areas. The list of cosponsors includes members from 19

States, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I believe it is easy to see why this

legislation has attracted such widespread support. It represents the

product of a true grass-roots effort and it is designed to provide a

unique trail experience for millions of Americans. I believe that

this legislation is a tremendously positive and exciting step forward

in both the development and in the connection of trails in America.
5

The bill contains two important components. First, it creates a

new category of trails, designated as the National Discovery Trails.

This new category will complete a missing gap in the current National Trails System by establishing a link between urban and

rural trails. Second, the legislation will designate the American

Discovery Trail—I will call it ADT—as the first trail in the new

category.

This trail, the ADT, was first proposed by the American Hiking

Society and Backpacker magazine in 1989. In 1991, a scouting

team hiked and biked its way across America, working with local

citizen groups and local State and Federal land managers to map

the route of ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992, Public Law 102–461,

authorized a feasibility study for the trail, which the National Park

Service completed in January of 1996.

The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend from coast

to coast. It is also the first national trail designed to connect urban

areas to wilderness areas. The designation of ADT, a multiuse

trail, itself creates a national system of connected trails and links

large cities and communities of all sizes across the Nation with majestic forest and remote desert landscapes. ADT also links such nationally known trails as the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails

with numerous local trails across the United States. Along the way,

it provides access to countless historic cultural and scenic landmarks.

I introduced the House version of this bill because I believe that

the ADT will provide outstanding family-oriented recreational opportunities for all Americans. It will serve as the transcontinental

backbone for a growing National Trails System by linking together

a variety of local, regional and national trails and making them

more accessible. In addition, ADT will offer important economic development benefits to the communities along the route.

States and communities are also justifiably excited about the increased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present and are

asking to be included or want to know how they can hook on. In

that regard, I have had several experiences in my own State of

communities wanting to know how they can assure that they are

a part of the trail. I received, for example, a letter from the mayor

of York, Nebraska, my birthplace. Last year the city of York recognized the benefit of the ADT and took the initiative to request that

the city be included on the route. I am pleased to say that their

request was accommodated.

I also clearly want to stress and stress again that the ADT takes

into account private property concerns by routing almost all of the

trail on public lands—mostly public road, highway rights of way.

I understand that a private property rights advocate, Bill Theis,

also will testify later this morning, and I would like to reassure

him and everyone else that one of the basic principles on which the

ADT has been developed has been to avoid routing on private property.

The ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public lands.

As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the route are located on private property and then only locations where there are

existing rights-of-way or agreement with existing trails or by invitation. Private property rights would be fully protected through
6

language in the bill which mandates that, quote, ‘‘No lands or interests outside the exterior boundaries of federally administered

areas may be acquired by the United States solely for the American

Discovery Trail,’’ so it doesn’t provide eminent domain or opportunities, it simply does not raise this issue. And if that is raised because of the very straightforward reassurances to the contrary, I

think you would understand that opposition in this respect would

be a red herring.

I would also like to take a moment to mention the importance

of the ADT in my home State as one example of the impact across

the country. In Nebraska, the trail passes through Omaha, Lincoln,

Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte, Ogallala, and numerous

small communities. Trails groups throughout the State have been

energized by the ADT, since they have realized the important role

they will play in this unique national trails initiative.

Nebraska, of course, like many States, has a rich trails history,

and I am pleased that the ADT gives trails enthusiasts the opportunity to explore the most popular and significant of the pioneer

trails to the West Coast and the mountain region.

The Mormon trail, I might say, I participated with some people

re-creating the trip from eastern Nebraska, two locations, one in

my district and one near it, across the State, all the way to the Salt

Lake City region. They will be arriving there, Mr. Chairman; you

can tell me exactly when, but I think it is in late July. I noticed

the impact it had on schoolchildren along the way as they made a

special effort to explain what was happening, what life had been

like in this vast, uncharted prairie country 150 years ago; and people came back from Utah, for example, to commemorate people who

lost their lives along the way. But this route in Nebraska takes the

same course as the Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the California Trail, as well as a Pony Express Trail and the route of the

first transcontinental railroad.

Additionally, I would highlight the trails effort by the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, in relation to ADT, they showed a high level of enthusiasm for the ADT, which has become the focal point for the

city’s trails programs. They received recently a great deal of fame

and success in their trails effort, but I won’t go into great detail,

you have got that in the record.

The city of Lincoln’s example demonstrates, I think, the positive

impact the ADT has had on communities through counterpart activities already. The community has worked hard to create an outstanding trail system, and it is clear these efforts were energized

by the ADT.

I think this is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge and

commend Mr. Reese Lukei, Jr., the ADT national coordinator. I understand he will also testify in front of this subcommittee for this

legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been an energetic and

tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive efforts along with the

American Hiking Society certainly raised awareness of the trail

and support for it.

The ADT is supported not only by the American Hiking Society,

but also the National Parks and Conservation Association, American Trails, American Volkssport Association and numerous local

trails organizations. I would also like to briefly mention two books
7

about the ADT which have been published. I have them here. One

is an explorer’s guide, edited by Reese Lukei; and the other is a

firsthand account of a journey along the trail written by Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg, members of the 1990–91 trail-scouting team

who have submitted testimony for this hearing. These books describe the unique and fascinating qualities of the ADT.

[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that although the ADT is national in scope, this important trails project

is made possible by grass-roots efforts on the State and local levels.

Enactment of this legislation is critically needed in order for the

ADT to achieve its outstanding potential. With the passage of this

bill, we will help ensure the ADT will offer benefits for generations

to come.

I have not been on the entire 6,300 miles of the trail, Mr. Vento;

I have been at both ends. But I think you have seen parts of it,

and I have seen other parts of it and walked on them or biked on

them, and this is an outstanding effort, I hope this committee will

be able to advance.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We appreciate your testimony.

[The statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE

STATE OF NEBRASKA

Chairman Hansen, Delegate Faleomavaega, and Members of the Subcommittee:

I would like to begin by thanking you very much for scheduling this hearing and

giving me the opportunity to express the case for the passage of H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act, which I re-introduced on February 5, 1997. I first introduced this legislation during the 104th Congress as H.R. 3250.

I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional display of support, H.R.

588 has already attracted a bipartisan mix of more than 50 cosponsors. These cosponsors represent both rural and urban districts and cover very diverse geographic

areas. The list of cosponsors includes Members from 19 states, American Samoa, the

Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I believe it’s easy to see why this legislation has attracted such widespread support. It represents the product of a true grassroots effort, and it is designed to provide a unique trail experience for millions of Americans. I believe that this legislation is a tremendously positive and exciting step forward in both the development and in the connection of trails in America.

The bill contains two important components: First, it creates a new category of

trails, designated as the National Discovery Trails. This new category will complete

a missing gap in the current National Trails System by establishing a link between

urban and rural trails. Second, the legislation will designate the American Discovery Trail (ADT) as the first trail in the new category.

This trail was first proposed by the American Hiking Society and Backpacker

magazine in 1989. In 1990-91, a scouting team hiked and biked its way across

America, working with local citizen groups and local, state, and Federal land managers to map the route of the ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992 (Public Law 102-

461) authorized a feasibility study for the trail, which the National Park Service

completed in January 1996.

The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend from coast-to coast. It’s

also the first national trail designed to connect urban areas to wilderness areas.

This multi-use trail itself creates a national system of connected trails and links

large cities with majestic forests and remote desert landscapes. The ADT also links

such nationally noted trails as the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest trails with numerous local trails across the U.S. Along the way, it provides access to countless

historic, cultural and scenic landmarks.

I introduced the House version of this bill because I believe that the ADT will

provide outstanding, family-oriented recreational opportunities for all Americans. It
8

will serve as the transcontinental backbone for a growing national trails system by

linking together a variety of local, regional and national trails and making them

more accessible.

In addition, the ADT will offer important economic development benefits to the

communities along its route. States and communities are also justifiably excited

about the increased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present and are asking to be included or want to know how they can ‘‘hook on.’’ In that regard, I would

like to submit for the record the letter I received from the mayor of York, Nebraska.

Last year the City of York recognized the benefits of the ADT and took the initiative

to request that the city be included on the route. I am pleased to say that their request was accommodated.

I also clearly want to stress and re-stress that the ADT takes into account private

property concerns by routing almost all of the trail on public lands. I understand

that a private property rights advocate, Bill Theis, will also testify later this morning and I would like to reassure him and everyone else that one of the basic principles on which the ADT has been developed has been to avoid routing it on private

property. The ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public lands.

As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the route are located on private

property and then only in locations where there are existing rights-of-way or agreements with existing trails or by invitation. Private property rights would be fully

protected through language in the bill which mandates that ‘‘no lands or interests

outside the exterior boundaries of federally administered areas may be acquired by

the United States solely for the American Discovery Trail.’’

I would also like to take a moment to mention the importance of the ADT in my

home state. In Nebraska, the trail passes through Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island,

Kearney, North Platte, Ogallala and numerous small communities. Trails groups

throughout the state have been energized by the ADT since they have realized the

important role they will play in this unique national trail initiative.

Nebraska has a rich trails history and I am pleased that the ADT gives trails enthusiasts the opportunity to explore the most popular and significant of the pioneer

trails to the West Coast—the Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the California

Trail—as well as the Pony Express Trail and the route of the first transcontinental

railroad.

Additionally, I would highlight the trails efforts by the City of Lincoln, Nebraska

in relation to the ADT. Lincoln has shown a high level of enthusiasm for the ADT,

which has become a focal point for the city’s trails program. I am pleased that Lincoln’s extensive trails efforts were recently rewarded. Last month, the American

Hiking Society announced that Lincoln was chosen as a charter member of the Trail

Town USA Hall of Fame. A panel of judges including representatives from USA

Today, the American Society of Travel Agents, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the

National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, rated the City

of Lincoln as the number seven community in the nation for trails. The judges based

the awards on more than a dozen criteria including miles of trails, future plans, and

volunteer and government support. Two other urban areas in this top ten list are

also located on the ADT route.

The City of Lincoln’s example demonstrates the kind of positive impact the ADT

has had on communities throughout the nation. The community has worked hard

to create an outstanding trails system and it is clear that these efforts were energized by the ADT. Lincoln’s strong commitment to the development of trails will

continue to pay dividends in the form of increased tourism, economic development

and recreational opportunities for its citizens.

This is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge and commend Mr. Reese Lukei,

Jr., the ADT’s national coordinator. I understand that he will also testify before the

Subcommittee in support of the legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been an

energetic and tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive efforts, along with the

work of the American Hiking Society, have certainly helped raise awareness about

the trail and support for it.

The American Discovery Trail is supported by not only the American Hiking Society, but also the National Parks and Conservation Association, American Trails,

American Volkesport Association and numerous local trails organizations. I would

also like to briefly mention two books about the ADT which have been published.

One is an explorer’s guide edited by Reese Lukei and the other is a firsthand account of a journey along the trail written by Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg, members of the 1990-91 trail-scouting team, who have submitted testimony for this hearing. These books describe the unique and fascinating qualities of the ADT.

Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that although the ADT is national in

scope, this important trails project is made possible by the grassroots efforts on the

state and local level. Enactment of this legislation is critically needed in order for
9

the ADT to achieve its outstanding potential. With passage of this bill, we will help

ensure that the ADT will offer benefits for generations to come.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 588.

LETTER TO HON. DOUG BEREUTER FROM GREG ADAMS, THE MAYOR OF YORK,

NEBRASKA

June 4, l997

Representative Doug Bereuter

2348 Rayburn, House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Doug:

Your continued support of the National Discovery Trail System and the American

Discover Trail Route is to be commended.

Completion of the American Discovery Trail Route in the York area would afford

billing enthusiasts additional recreational opportunities and provide a direct link

with larger population centers providing access to additional recreational facilities.

Outdoor recreation interest, biking in particular, has grown tremendously in the

York area in recent years and we believe this trend will continue into the 21st century

The economic benefit resulting from users of the proposed trail system is difficult

to project. However, it is with certainty that York and other communities along the

American Discovery Trail Route will realize a positive economic impact. Users, and

in some cases their support groups, will need food, lodging, and supplies as they

enjoy this recreational experience.

Again, we urge your continued support for the American Discovery Trail System.

Very truly yours,

CITY OF YORK

Greg Adams,

Mayor

Mr. HANSEN. The Honorable Jerry Weller, we are grateful to

have you with us.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also grateful for

the hearing you are providing for H.R. 1513. I also want to thank

Mr. Vento and Mr. Jones for the opportunity to be with you today

and to testify on behalf of this legislation, which I feel is both an

important and exciting initiative, a bill to designate the Lincoln

Historic Trail, legislation that has earned bipartisan support in Illinois delegation.

Before I go on, I would like to take an opportunity to recognize

Leonard Lock, Chairman of the city of Ottawa Historic Preservation Commission, and one of those who, almost 20 years ago, was

a pioneer, leading an effort to establish the Illinois-Michigan Canal

Heritage Corridor through Illinois. Mr. Lock has taken his time to

join us today to testify—and will be testifying later this morning—

to be with us and share his knowledge and insight on Lincoln’s history throughout Illinois and, of course, his reason for naming this

particular trail after Abraham Lincoln.

I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would designate

the Lincoln National Historic Trail as a component of the National

Trails System. This trail would consist of a 350-mile stretch generally following the Illinois River and the Illinois-Michigan Canal

Heritage Corridor. The trail would begin at the Chicago Portage

National Historic site and conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail

at Wood River.
10

My legislation resulted from a feasibility study conducted by the

National Park Service. The Park Service was directed by Congress

to determine the feasibility and desirability of establishing the ‘‘Illinois Trail’’ as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. I should

mention here that my legislation changes the name from ‘‘Illinois

Trail’’ to ‘‘Lincoln Trail,’’ but it is the exact same trail that was

studied. The Park Service concluded the proposed trail met the criteria for both national historic trails and national scenic trails, but

that a historic trail would be most feasible.

As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the Illinois River

and the I&M Canal. The Illinois River was used for commerce and

transportation during Lincoln’s day, although French settlers were

using it for trade long before Lincoln’s time. As a matter of fact,

Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a State legislator, was a proponent of building the canal between the Chicago River and the Illinois River at LaSalle, which was a major navigational improvement that helped position Chicago as a major economic center,

which it has since become and achieved that goal.

There would be interpretive sites along the trail of historical significance. For instance, the trail would go through Ottawa, Illinois,

the site of the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Others

include the old Beardstown courthouse, which is the only remaining courtroom where Abraham Lincoln practiced law.

I also might note that the studies show that this route comes at

a very low cost with little land acquisition and is the route preferred by the State of Illinois according to the Park Service study.

The Park Service would develop and manage access areas and facilities to allow recreational boating on the historic waterway. The

Park Service would be responsible for administration of the trail

and would work with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources

to coordinate trail facility development, as well as areas for picnicking and camping. Designation of the ‘‘Lincoln National Historic

Trail’’ would increase tourism, conservation and recreation while

reinforcing Abraham Lincoln’s contributions to our Nation’s history.

Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring history

and nature enthusiasts to the region for biking, camping, boating

and other recreational activities. This increased tourism will improve local economies along the route. The folks that come to visit

the Lincoln Trail will eat in local establishments, stay in local hotels, and patronize local establishments to rent and purchase

skates, cycling equipment and other items. A U.S. Department of

Interior study on the Impact of Rails-to-Trails found the average

trail user spent between $4 and $11 a day, generating an annual

impact of $1.2 million or more. Due to the length of the length of

the trail, we would expect this number to be much higher. This

plan is great for economic development throughout the State of Illinois.

There is some evidence that having a trail such as this adjacent

to property will increase its value. The survey of real estate agents

completed on a similar trail in Washington State revealed that

property near the trail sells for an average of 6 percent more.

To summarize, my legislation, H.R. 1513, would designate the

proposed ‘‘Illinois Trail’’ as a national historic trail, while changing
11

the name to the Lincoln National Historic Trail. I have also included a provision that requests a study of an extension of the trail

along the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield. This

would be a water-based route and would emphasize important historic and cultural sites along the river, ending at Springfield, Abraham Lincoln’s hometown.

Finally, I would like to express my support for the other piece

of legislation the committee is looking at today, the American Discovery Trail, a bill by Congressman Bereuter. I am pleased to endorse his initiative.

I ask for your support, and I also want to thank you for this

hearing today and the opportunity to present this legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony.

[The statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for having me here today to talk about a very exciting piece of legislation—a bill to designate the Lincoln National Historic Trail. Before I go on, I would

like to recognize Leonard Lock, Chairman of the City of Ottawa Historic Preservation Commission, who has taken his time to come out to Washington to be with us

today and share his knowledge and insight on Lincoln history throughout Illinois.

Mr. Lock will present his testimony shortly.

I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would designate the Lincoln National Historic Trail as a component of the National Trails System. This trail would

consist of a 350 mile stretch generally following the Illinois River and the Illinois

and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would begin at the Chicago Portage National Historic site, and conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail at Wood

River.

My legislation resulted from a feasibility study that was conducted by the National Park Service. The Park Service was directed by Congress to determine the

feasibility and desirability of establishing the ‘‘Illinois Trail’’ as a National Scenic

or National Historic Trail. I should mention here that my legislation changes the

name from ‘‘Illinois Trail’’ to ‘‘Lincoln Trail,’’ but is the exact same trail that was

studied. The Park Service concluded that the proposed trail met the criteria for both

national historic trails and national scenic trails, but that an historic trail would

be most feasible.

As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the Illinois River and I&M Canal.

The Illinois River was used for commerce and transportation during Lincoln’s day,

although French settlers were using it for trade long before Lincoln’s time. As a

matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a state legislator, was a proponent of building the canal between the Chicago River and the Illinois River at LaSalle, which was a major navigational improvement that helped to position Chicago

as a major economic center. There would be interpretive sites along the trail that

have historical significance. For instance, the trail would go through Ottawa, Illinois—the site of the first of the infamous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Other historical

sites include the old Beardstown Courthouse, which is the only remaining courtroom

where Abraham Lincoln practiced law.

The Park Service would develop and manage river access areas and facilities to

allow recreational boating on the historic waterway. The Park Service would be responsible for administration of the trail, and would work with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to coordinate trail and facility development, as well as

areas for picnicking and camping. Designation of the ‘‘Lincoln National Historic

Trail’’ would increase tourism, conservation, and recreation while reinforcing Lincoln’s contributions to our nation’s history.

Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring history and nature enthusiasts to the region for biking, camping, boating and other recreational activities.

This increased tourism will improve local economies along the route. The folks that

come to visit the Lincoln Trail will eat in local establishments, stay in local hotels,

and patronize local establishments to rent or purchase skates, bicycling equipment

and other such items. A U.S. Department of Interior study on the Impacts of Railsto-Trails found that the average trail user spent between $4 and $11 per day, generating an annual impact of $1.2 million or more. Due to the length of the Lincoln
12

Trail, we could expect this number to be much higher. This plan is great for economic development throughout the state of Illinois. There is some evidence that

having a trail such as this adjacent to property will increase its value. A survey of

real estate agents completed on a similar trail in Washington State revealed that

property near the trail sells for an average of 6 percent more.

To summarize, my bill, H.R. 1513, would designate the proposed ‘‘Illinois Trail’’

as a national historic trail, while changing the name to the ‘‘Lincoln National Historic Trail.’’ I have also included a provision that requests a study of an extension

of the trail along the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield. This would

be a water-based route, and would emphasize important historic and cultural sites

along the river, ending at Springfield, Abraham Lincoln’s birthplace.

Finally, I would like to express my support for the other piece of legislation we

are looking at today, the American Discovery Trail bill by Congressman Bereuter.

I am a co-sponsor of this legislation, and am pleased to lend my support. I urge the

Committee to move favorably and approve H.R. 1513, to designate the ‘‘Lincoln National Historic Trail.’’

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota, do you have questions for our colleagues?

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, with regards to Mr. Weller’s legislation, I haven’t examined the study, but there is this nomenclature

issue with regards to what best description occurs; and the gentleman sitting next to you represents Lincoln, Nebraska, so the

name gets used often, so I think you ought to think long and hard

about that.

I asked the staff, Rick Healy on the Minority side—and I think

the issue is, if you want to attach Lincoln’s name, you might want

to talk about the canal as being the Lincoln Canal and try to keep

nomenclature accurate with regards to the Illinois Trail, because it

does follow the river. So I would suggest that as an alternative; it

isn’t enough, but I think you want to be accurate with regards to

how you designate that.

My colleague from Nebraska has put forth and been working—

I said 5 years, and I guess it has been 8 years you have been working on this particular proposal; and it is a very ambitious proposal

in terms of its length and breadth in covering the Nation. Later we

are going to hear some corrections from the Park Service about

this, and they are going to discuss some of the conflicts that are

inherent.

I sponsored this bill with you, I think it is important enough, although it is a generic change to the basic trails legislation with regards to motorized use, in order to avoid or at least keep this tied

together. I haven’t looked at this in as much detail as I should

have, Congressman Bereuter, but what segments, or how many

miles? Have you separated any of the mileage out in terms of how

much would be motorized and how much would not be motorized?

Mr. BEREUTER. No, I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps one

of the witnesses involved in the initial pioneer scouting trail will.

I would say that the predominant amount of the 6,000-plus miles

are on rights-of-way, existing rights-of-way, but of course there are

a number of areas it does cross State parks or national forests, and

those oftentimes do not follow.

Mr. VENTO. I think it is a good concept to tie together national

lands and State parks and other units along the way that give people the experience.

At the end of this, you said you hadn’t covered it all, but I suppose when you run for President, this will be one of your commit-
13

ments, to in fact entirely tread this trail, or at least bike it part

way.

Mr. BEREUTER. I am more realistic, I hope, about the opportunity

to pass this legislation than I am about any intention to run for

President, I think.

Mr. WELLER. May I respond to Mr. Vento’s question regarding

the nomenclature?

Mr. HANSEN. Surely.

Mr. WELLER. Illinois, we are very proud to call, ‘‘The Land of

Lincoln’’ and of course, other than—we recognize he was born in

Kentucky, but he spent his entire professional life, other than

while he served briefly in the Congress and while he served as one

of our Nation’s greatest Presidents, in Illinois.

This trail would start in Chicago where Abraham Lincoln was

nominated for President, and I just think, when you think of Illinois, you think of Abraham Lincoln; and that is why we feel it is

an appropriate name for a national trail.

Mr. VENTO. This is a pristine logic, Mr. Chairman. I would just

suggest, I think there are two separate sites; there is the homestead site for Lincoln in Illinois, in Springfield, but there is another

site as well.

In any case, I think in terms of the public’s looking at these, they

expect it may bring those together or actually have a connection

with, for instance, Kentucky; which I think makes the point that

I am trying to, you know, in terms of communicating this to those

that understand the history better than I, and as well as you, Mr.

Weller.

In any case, I would offer it as a way of, you know, recognizing

where his role was significant in terms of the establishment of the

Michigan-Illinois Canal, the Heritage site, and obviously you would

accomplish both goals, and you do it in such a way as to be consistent and so operating isn’t obviously a big point.

Mr. WELLER. And I am most anxious to work with you in a bipartisan manner, and I appreciate that.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The colleague from Nebraska, I often wonder, at the National

Governors Conference—the counties, the mayors—any support or

comment or objection to your bill? Do any of these groups come

forth?

Mr. BEREUTER. I have not received comments from them on it

one way or the other. There have been news articles lately in some

of the national publications, which indicate support from individual

governors and, of course, wide numbers of mayors. I have had no

one contact me in my own State in a negative sense, either public

official or nonpublic, but I don’t believe that any of the national associations of public officials of various varieties have taken a position on it one way or the other. Perhaps I am more delinquent in

not asking them to do that.

Mr. HANSEN. You have kept them aware and apprised of what

is going on, and so far you have had no comments?

Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct.

Mr. HANSEN. In your testimony, you make a point of the idea,

it would not acquire private land or any private property. Do you
14

intend that that would occur anywhere? I mean, this is the most

ambitious trail I have ever looked at, and I wonder if you envisioned any of that occurring along the line.

Mr. BEREUTER. As you know, there are only 58 miles that are not

now on public rights-of-way or public lands, and those have existing agreements that have been acquired at this point. My view is

that the only real source of opposition to this legislation could come

from people that are concerned about the taking of private property, and so I simply wanted to set aside that issue, because the

people who have worked with me over a period of time have indicated it is not necessary to have an opportunity for eminent domain, and in fact, they go beyond that and say we do not anticipate

nor want the right, under the legislation, to acquire private property, even from willing sellers. Fifty-eight miles in 6,300 is such an

insignificant amount, and there is no reason, of course, why one

needs to have it all on public land as long as you have arrangements with the owners of the 58 miles.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would say

this. You may have noticed that the legislation, which prohibits the

acquisition of private land, does not apply to the category of trails

being created, only to the American Discovery Trail itself; and I

would leave to your judgment, as a trail-by-trail consideration of

future legislation, whether or not you wanted to prohibit the acquisition of private land on new trails that might be added under this

category.

But I simply did not want to face that difficulty, because I don’t

think it is essential to the success of this trail, and I didn’t want

to have that raised as an argument against this particular trail,

the American Discovery Trail. But you will have the judgment in

the future, unless you would prefer to change the legislation and

make the prohibition a categoric one that would apply to future

trails.

Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed, in the little bit I have seen of your

legislation, a lot of it is contiguous to interstates, State roads, areas

such as that. They are constantly changing interstates or adding

lanes and they are changing direction. Does that give you any concern at all? Do we have a conflict anywhere with that?

Mr. BEREUTER. We think that there needs to be an ongoing effort

on the part of the nonprofit organization in working with the National Park Service, and of course, the Department of Transportation and its State equivalents, to modify the trail in the future

as the specific route changes, because there is a right-of-way

change. Generally those changes would be modest, it would seem,

especially in the part of the country—you have a heavy roads system with lots of county roads in my part of the country, of course,

on a square-mile basis. But in some parts of the country, like your

own, there aren’t that many alternatives in the more sparcely settled parts of the Nation west of you.

So I do think you need to have an ongoing effort as roads change,

as rights-of-way are selected—for the route might change modestly,

I would think—to redesignate that particular 2- to 5-mile, 10-mile

stretch, whatever it might be.

Mr. HANSEN. On the Great Western Trail, we hooked up existing

trails; we put signs up saying, ‘‘This is the Great Western Trail.’’
15

To this day, it isn’t completed, but it starts in Mexico, and parts

are motorized, there are parts of only walking trails. I guess we

can take animals on most of them. Most of this is done by volunteers who have volunteered their time——

Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct.

Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] and have spent an awful lot of time

improving the trails and have worked with local governments. It

really hasn’t cost the Federal Government much money at all.

What do you anticipate, cost-wise, on this?

Mr. BEREUTER. The Park Service at this point would indicate

that the comprehensive plan developed by the nonprofit organization, which would be presented to you and your equivalent in the

other body, would cost $360,000; then the annual cost is estimated

to be $200,000 for signing and the relatively small amount of maintenance that relates to the trail.

So we are obviously talking about a trails enthusiasts’ volunteer

effort. If they are talking about—only about that amount of signing, you know that doesn’t go very far. I do think, as you probably

were noting yourself, that the refinement of a trail, through the

markings and through the development of it, is an ongoing process.

I am very proud of the fact that the Lewis and Clark Trail, basically a water trail, passes on the boundary of my State; and some

time ago, with the help of this committee, I gave some incentives

for local groups to designate all of the Lewis and Clark campgrounds. But again, the markers or the kiosks or the outlooks that

were developed on public land, that had a lot of volunteer effort as

well; and that effort is not complete in the surrounding States.

I think our State is ahead in marking all the campgrounds, but

it has provided, incidentally, an opportunity for people in my State

and from elsewhere around the country to actually retrace the

Lewis and Clark expedition with excerpts from the journal for that

day on the signs that are erected; and it is done in a fashion that

is consistent with the logo that was established by the National

Park Service, so that ultimately, it will tie the whole effort to at

least some degree of similarity in marking.

Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed our colleague from Virginia, Mr.

Pickett, hasn’t arrived.

Mr. VENTO. Just a brief question for Mr. Bereuter. One of the

concerns expressed by the Park Service is the exemption from the

American Discovery Trail from two sections, and while one authorizes the acceptance of donations in collaboration, through cooperative agreements, the other authorizes land exchanges to protect national trails. These provisions, both of which would be voluntary in

this—you know, someone conveying land or an easement or voluntarily entering into a cooperative agreement, or a land exchange,

where you have a conflict with the Park Service or the Department

of Interior, could accomplish that.

I take it your—you did this consciously, you left these out because you are concerned about not having any authority in here for

gaining additional land within the context of it. But it seems to

me—I understand the good faith you are trying to show, and even

in spite of this, you are—concerns are being raised; but do you understand, my concern is that it seems to me that these tools are

important administrative tools, especially for the length and
16

breadth of the trail, so I hope we can work out something, notwithstanding that.

You are being criticized today in spite of the fact you have done

this, but I just think those are reasonable tools that I think the

Park Service needs in this instance, especially considering the

length, because you can avoid problems by using those tools.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Vento, I knew of the concerns of the Park

Service, but in an abundance of caution, we took this step to try

to avert any kind of legitimate criticism about expansion of public

lands and a concern that local governmental units might lose tax

base. You will, of course, have the judgment on that issue. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with donating funds, but when you

donate land, you are back in a controversy. And I would just point

out, once again, page 5, line 8, those three subsections that are exempted in this legislation do not apply to the category, you may

have noticed, but it applies only to this trail, this ADT; it does not

apply to the category being established.

Mr. VENTO. Of course, the issue here is some can be purchased

by nonprofits; we don’t have any control over that, so I think continuity would make some sense. If this were, I suppose, threshold

questions with regards to what the impact would be, I would say

in a rural county, you could have a donation of easement that

might diminish the land value or do other things, I don’t know, but

it seems to me in terms of trying to avoid conflict and provide the

type of experience and the meaningful designation that you have

been advancing—but I understand your concern. I just wanted to

make the observation with regards—because I think some of us

would try to administer things, where we have such limited options

makes it difficult to accomplish the goals we are trying to achieve,

and I think you can understand what I am saying.

Mr. BEREUTER. I do.

Mr. HANSEN. You know, there is nothing easy in the world, especially in Congress, but we will work things out as we go along. I

am sure there will be additional questions. In my mind, I am wondering about rights-of-way, gas lines, power lines, all of those

things. I don’t think we have ever done anything easy around here,

have we?

Mr. VENTO. Not when it is 6,000 miles.

Mr. HANSEN. But I do appreciate our two colleagues giving their

excellent testimony and the very tantalizing and intriguing proposals you have put before this committee. Thank you for being

here. I wish Mr. Pickett could have been with us. We will take his

testimony, however. We will excuse you and turn to our first panel.

Our first panel is Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnership, for the National

Park Service. We are always grateful to have Katherine Stevenson

with us. And Robert C. Joslin, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest

Service. If those two would come up.

I hope you are all right. Can you suffer through this?

Ms. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. I had thought of telling you that this

was the result of a climbing accident or something of the like, but

I thought it wouldn’t be best to lie to Congress.
17

Mr. HANSEN. I can understand that. I always like to make it a

skiing accident and tell somebody; I really say, I fell down some

stairs or something.

Anyway, can both of you handle 5 minutes or what time do you

need? Is 5 minutes adequate? OK. You know the rules; just like a

traffic light.

We invite both Mr. Weller and Mr. Bereuter to come up if they

feel so inclined.

Ms. STEVENSON. Would you like me to testify on both H.R. 588

and H.R. 1513 at the same time.

Mr. HANSEN. If you wouldn’t mind. Do you need a few more minutes, maybe 10 minutes?

Ms. STEVENSON. No, I don’t need that much time.

Mr. HANSEN. Why don’t we give you 7, because I think you are

probably going to need the time. I know how good you are at this;

you are an old hand at it. We will go ahead and recognize you at

this time

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the full

testimony for the record if you would be so kind.

On H.R. 588, the National Park Service strongly supports enactment, if amended, as proposed in our testimony. As several witnesses before me have pointed out, the bill establishes a new category of long-distance trails, the national discovery trails, and also

authorizes the American Discovery Trail as the first national discovery trail.

The National Park Service has been involved in this for a number of years, since 1990 when the ADT was proposed. In 1992, Congress directed a feasibility study, which we completed in December

of 1995 and submitted to Congress in 1996. The trail proposed, as

you have pointed out, extends over 6,000 miles and the criteria described in the bill will further the goals of the National Trails System by incorporating a variety of cities and towns and will increase

public access to the trails system. The primary management responsibility will be with a strong partner and then with us, and we

believe very strongly that the partner should be there from the beginning and have a major role in the development, as well as the

designation, as has been the case.

The trail largely uses existing trails and trail systems, and you

have heard a fair amount of testimony already, that only a handful

of private parcels will be authorized, or will be involved, and that

an underlying trail exists already, as do voluntary agreements with

those private property owners.

On the ever-present issue of cost, the details will be in the comprehensive management plan. The feasibility study said the comprehensive management plan itself would cost $360,000 over the

course of several years and that our estimated operating costs

would be about $400,000 per year. I refer you to the proposed

amendments in our testimony, pages 6 through 9, and I won’t address those individually unless you wish.
18

In H.R. 1513, Interior supports the designation, but not the

name or the focus on Lincoln. This bill would again amend the National Trails System Act by adding another national historic trail

called the Lincoln National Historic Trail and designating a study

trail that would extend the Lincoln Trail. In large measure, this

proposal is the trail proposed in the feasibility study called the Illinois Trail that was transmitted to Congress by the National Park

Service in 1991. The study itself was conducted from 1984 to 1987,

so the study is some 10 years old.

We found the trail to be nationally significant for its historic and

prehistoric use as a commerce and transportation corridor. While

Abraham Lincoln has a connection, as has been pointed out earlier,

to the Illinois and Michigan Canal portion of the trail and perhaps

some other portions, we would argue the national significance lies

in its role in the development of trade, commerce and transportation, as well as exploration, migration and settlement, so a much

broader significance than that of Lincoln alone.

It may well be that a trail directly associated with the life of Lincoln is appropriate, but we have not yet studied this issue and

could not support this named designation. Consequently, we recommend that the trail on the Illinois River and waterway route be

designated as the Illinois Trail, and the additional study route be

deleted until it could be part of an entire Lincoln proposal to be

made at a later date.

Thank you very much for considering our comments. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your comments.

[The statement of Ms. Stevenson can be found at the end of the

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Joslin, we will turn the time to you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S.

FOREST SERVICE

Mr. JOSLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thanks for inviting us to come and share our views on

H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997. I brought with

me Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness

Resources in the Forest Service. As stated, my complete statement

has been submitted for the record, so I will summarize that statement and then will be glad to answer questions from you and members of the subcommittee.

The Department of Agriculture does not object to the creation of

a new category of trails as proposed by H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997. You have already heard the background

on the American Discovery Trail from Mrs. Stevenson, so I will not

repeat it. The National Trails Systems Act consists of eight national scenic trails, 12 national historic trails and over 800 national

recreation trails. The Forest Service is responsible for the overall

management of more than 125,000 miles of trails in the national

forest system.

Trails are a key ingredient to wonderful outdoor, recreational

and scenic experience, which is why over 30 million recreation visitor-days are spent each year in trails in the national forests. The

success of long distance trails, such as the American Discovery
19

Trail, is dependent on strong State and local support in conjunction

with public and private partners. Working cooperatively through

partnerships and volunteer groups, as stated in the National Trails

Systems Act, would be essential elements of the success of the

American Discovery Trail.

We wish to raise two concerns with regard to planning and administering the American Discovery Trail, as stated in H.R. 588.

The first point deals with the comprehensive management plan.

Section 2(c) of the bill would require that the administering Federal agencies shall enter into arrangements with a competent,

trail-wide, nonprofit organization to submit a comprehensive plan.

It is unclear who has the ultimate responsibility for preparing

and transmitting the comprehensive plan to Congress. Nonprofit

organizations are not responsible to the public or the Congress for

consistency with other trail management policies. Allowing nonFederal organizations to be held responsible for land management

decisions made in the comprehensive plan also raises concerns

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We recommend that

the bill be amended to provide that the comprehensive management plan would be prepared by the administering Secretary in

consultation with the management entity and that the secretary

would submit the plan to Congress.

Our second concern deals with how the trail would be administered. H.R. 588 requires the administering Secretary to cooperate

with a—quote, a, unquote, competent trail-wide nonprofit organization. This presumably implies that only one nonprofit organization

will be involved in the administration of the 6,000-plus mile trail.

We believe this is unduly restrictive.

We recommend changing the bill to include one or more private

non-Federal entities, which would then provide the opportunity to

optimize the benefits to the public and build collaborative stewardship among the public, the nonprofit organizations and the Federal

Government.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be glad

to take any questions you might have.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

[The statement of Mr. Joslin can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note with interest the

testimony from Mr. Joslin, the Deputy Chief, and I appreciate the

testimony. I refer specifically to page 4, Mr. Chairman, where he

comments about the relationship between the nonprofit and the

Park Service and Forest Service.

Mr. Joslin, Deputy Joslin, would you suggest there ought to be

more clarification here, that the Park Service and Forest Service

ought to be in a coordinating role of more than one nonprofit, so

they—is that your suggestion here?

Mr. JOSLIN. No, sir. The suggestion there—the Park Service

would have the administration over this, but the suggestion there

is that we include language which would not specifically say, one,

which is somewhat limiting, although the language may encompass

that now. We believe it should be clarified.
20

Mr. VENTO. Director Stevenson, how many nonprofits work on,

for instance, the Appalachian Trail? Isn’t there a multiple number?

Ms. STEVENSON. Yes, sir, there are many, many nonprofits that

work on it. Our experience has been if you have a single group,

who is the lead group, that it makes it significantly easier for us

to work with them, and it is their responsibility to work cooperatively with the smaller groups and get them together to have a single opinion.

Mr. VENTO. You differ with the Forest Service testimony here?

Ms. STEVENSON. It is a difference of opinion, yes, sir.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Joslin, does the Forest Service have any nonprofit groups that they work with?

Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, we do, and in connection with the ATC, we

agree with the way that works, but there are—the language in

there, all we are saying is, if you have the language as it is now,

perhaps you might not be able to incorporate——

Mr. VENTO. You are saying you can do one if you want to do one,

but you ought to have the flexibility, is what you are saying, so

there would be no objection to that?

Mr. JOSLIN. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. Director Stevenson.

Ms. STEVENSON. Actually, we would have an objection. We feel

very strongly there needs to be a lead group.

Mr. VENTO. But you can select or not select the lead group.

Ms. STEVENSON. That leaves you with the position of choosing

among them, and if there is a lead group that has to be formed

from a larger group, they among themselves decide who the lead

group is and agree upon a method of dealing with us. Otherwise,

you have enormous difficulty in relating to a large number of people.

Mr. VENTO. I think the concern is, at the end of the day, it is

a coordinating role, and if in fact the designated nonprofit were not

to be performing, there ought to at least be the recognition that the

Forest Service or the Park Service can in fact work with the individuals. I realize it is more difficult to do in that vein, but I don’t

know that there have been—I guess there have been some problems with regards to the Appalachian Trail; is that correct?

Ms. STEVENSON. No, the Appalachian Trail has worked out very

well with a single coordinating group.

Mr. VENTO. Has that—is it designated in the law, per se?

Ms. STEVENSON. I don’t believe so.

Mr. VENTO. If it is worked out, I don’t understand what the concern is about the added flexibility being added here. If you can do

it without the designation in law, why would you want to limit

your flexibility?

Ms. STEVENSON. Our experience was that that was come to after

a long and arduous journey. There were many times there were

significant differences of opinion. All we are trying to suggest is

that we could circumvent some of those problems by saying up

front that the groups would choose a single representative to represent all of them and then we would have one relationship, rather

than many.

Mr. VENTO. In any case, I think an important point was made

here when it was indicated that a significant number of volunteers
21

helped maintain and do a significant number of tasks that relate

to enhancing the quality of the trails, that the Forest Service and

the Park Service both have had significant volunteer efforts to

maintain the trails, is that correct.

Ms. STEVENSON. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. And I see Mr. Joslin is nodding his head too. Unfortunately, we are on an audio system.

Mr. JOSLIN. Yes.

Mr. VENTO. With regards to the language I referred to, with donations of easements, you obviously favor not having that language

in the bill that is in the bill now, the limitations on donations and

cooperative agreement.

Ms. STEVENSON. We feel it would be very advantageous for us to

have the ability to use every tool at our disposal to make this trail

work and therefore they should be included as options for us.

Mr. VENTO. To what extent—in terms of this cooperative agreement and conveying to the nonprofits the responsibility here, to

what extent would the Park Service or Forest Service be involved

in dealing with, for instance, State parks or State trails or other

national units that might be—for instance, BLM, wouldn’t the Park

Service or Forest Service need to be involved at that particular

point and work very closely in order to gain the confidence of those

groups in providing easements and working with you and signing?

Ms. STEVENSON. I think I understand your question. We would

cooperate with other Federal agencies and with State parks to the

fullest extent along the trail.

Mr. VENTO. You both spoke of the fact of the comprehensive plan,

but who in the end would be responsible for preparing and submitting the comprehensive plan?

Ms. STEVENSON. The National Park Service in this case.

Mr. VENTO. Even though the work would be done by the nonprofit group, I assume most of this is in here in this way to avoid

the cost concerns; and if it were, I suppose, under a different period

of time, we might look at it differently. The private group, would

they have to comply with, for instance, all the environmental laws,

like NEPA.

Ms. STEVENSON. We would prepare such a plan in cooperation

with them and assure that all the appropriate laws were met. Then

we would be the one who actually had to submit it, that is the process we choose now.

Mr. VENTO. You would have to go through NEPA yourself.

Ms. STEVENSON. We would meet all Federal laws.

Mr. VENTO. You used NEPA for the study, didn’t you.

Ms. STEVENSON. I believe so.

Mr. VENTO. The question I would ask Mr. Bereuter, do you know

what the breakdown is in terms of the motorized miles on the

6,000-mile trail.

Ms. STEVENSON. Actually, it is in the report itself.

Mr. VENTO. I will look in there then, if you don’t know it off the

top of your head, because my light has been on for a minute.

Mr. JOSLIN. Sixty-five percent of it is either paved or graveled.

Mr. VENTO. What does that mean? I mean, for instance, the trail

I bike on is paved, this long trail that I do in the gateway, isn’t

necessarily motorized though.
22

Ms. STEVENSON. And we may not have that detail. Page 20 of the

report has the trail statistics for paved, gravel, and trails and sidewalk.

Mr. VENTO. Even though it is paved or gravel doesn’t mean—we

have a lot of limestone paths and bike paths, for instance, in Wisconsin. I am from Minnesota, but I do go over there. So I am pointing out that in itself doesn’t necessarily indicate it is motorized. In

fact, we can’t have motorized. In fact, I would get the roller-bladers

off there. If you ever tried to pass one of them, they are all over

the place.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. BEREUTER. No questions.

Mr. HANSEN. Does the gentleman from Illinois have any questions?

Mr. VENTO. The question he should be asking is on the nomenclature there.

Mr. HANSEN. I don’t think he wants to. If I may ask, a major provision of H.R. 588 exempts the American Discovery Trail from land

acquisition. The testimony states that the National Park Service

believes the national discovery trail should not be exempt from Section 7(e) and (f) of the National Trails System Act. This creates the

fear that private landowners have concerning this bill or further

land acquisition in general.

All you have done is leave Section 7(g) in the bill, which would

not allow condemnation. If you are not going to condemn things, is

it the intent of the National Park Service to eventually acquire the

trail right away for the American Discovery Trails and any subsequent national discovery trails?

Ms. STEVENSON. May I ask Tom Ross, who is one of our trail specialists and very familiar with the Act to answer that?

Mr. HANSEN. Bring him up. Identify yourself and grab that mike

on the other side. Tell us who you are for the record.

Mr. ROSS. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is

Tom Ross. I am the Acting Assistant Director for Recreation and

Conservation Programs with the National Park Service. I believe

the question you raised was in regard to our request to have authority to use those two subsections, under Section 7. They would

allow the opportunity for us to participate with the trail organizations in cooperative agreements and also for the Federal Government to carry out land transfers under that authority. Specifically

in our testimony, we are in agreement with the bill, which precludes any kind of Federal acquisition authority for this particular

trail.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you envision possibly at a later date the National Park Service will ask Congress to authorize and appropriate

funds for acquisition.

Mr. ROSS. No, sir. The intent of the entire Discovery Trail category is to build upon the efforts of State, local and the nonprofit

groups that are involved in establishing trails and not to create any

new federally owned areas.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, do you have any further questions, Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to comment to my colleague in Illinois,

there is an Illinois boyhood site for Lincoln in Springfield and one
23

in Kentucky, so there are three different sites. I was trying to recall what the circumstance was.

With regards to your last question, Mr. Chairman, I think the

issue that is going to arise is that, of course, if you build this

framework, this 6,000-mile framework, it is possible States or local

governments or nonprofits will, in fact, fill in the areas and help

you. Of course, that does arise.

What comes back to us at that particular time, then, as we were

to work with that, would be the question of operating expenses,

which have greatly been diminished by all the volunteer efforts.

This is the logical extension in terms of what we are doing. There

are some questions about the conflicts that occur.

When I joked about the roller-bladers, they also have—they are

doing ways of inventing. I mean, once you put the trails in place,

you end up with a tremendous number of people. So the caring capacity issue with regard to the trails, especially around some urban

areas, is a real important question, you know. So I just would point

that out in terms of trying to deal with these.

I mean, there are a lot of questions that arise with regard to motorized use. For instance, if you are actually using freeways or

highways, we have fences around them so that people aren’t walking around on them. So in these cases, you would not have a contiguous area you could walk in. Is that the point, Ms. Stevenson,

or the other member of the Park Service? Can you answer that

question? How do you anticipate use of the trail differing in terms

of the motorized use, other types of uses? In some areas, you would

not be able to take your roller blades; is that right.

Mr. ROSS. That is correct, sir. I think, as the study indicates, a

good portion of the American Discovery Trail, initially, will be

along roadways and sides of roadways, and that by its nature

would not be able to preclude any sort of motorized use.

Mr. VENTO. You can bike though, can’t you?

Mr. ROSS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VENTO. That is the important thing.

Mr. HANSEN. We have always been kind of concerned about the

trails and I think the general consensus is we feel good about them

and they are a part of our culture and history and that type of

thing. On the other side of the coin, they seem to be like many government programs. They start out very innocuous and before we

long we are pouring money into them and I think that is what Mr.

Bereuter is trying to work out.

On the great western trail we worked on, we have scrupulously

tried to make sure we are not pouring any Federal money into this

thing. I cannot believe the amount of people that go up and clear

that trail and they have started societies and organizations and

memberships and fraternities and the whole 9 yards about it, and

part of the thing in life is to have on your badge that you have both

hiked the Appalachian trail, what do they call it, the Pacific Crest

Trail and also the Great Western Trail, and I admire the folks who

can do it.

I guess we get a little nervous if we anticipate, one, private property being desecrated without a willing seller or willing right of

way and, two, the money that has to come out of Congress. On the
24

other side of the coin, there are things that are worth appropriating money for because of the historical nature of it.

Mr. Weller, if I may point out, there seems to be some concern

on names in your particular area. Some of us, we have heard, there

might be an amendment to change it to Land of Lincoln National

Historic Trail. Have you heard that, and if you haven’t, would you

agree to it?

Mr. WELLER. I was not aware of a Land of Lincoln National Historic Trail and the sponsor of that particular amendment has not

discussed it with me.

Mr. VENTO. It is getting better all the time, isn’t it?

Mr. WELLER. I am proud Congressman Lipinski represents the

area to the north and the city of Chicago is working closely with

me, and I am anxious to work with members of the committee in

a bipartisan way to move this legislation forward. Clearly, Abraham Lincoln played a very important role for this Nation and Illinois is the land of Lincoln. I am anxious to work with this committee as we move through this process, but I do believe the Lincoln name as part of this national historic trail would be important.

I think it is important he have his name as part of that name.

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate Katherine Stevenson and Robert

Joslin for being with us, and the gentleman, is it Watt?

Mr. ROSS. It is Ross, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony. Excuse me for not

picking that up.

Our second panel is Bill Theis, David Lillard and Reese Lukei.

If they would come forward. I understand Mr. Pickett wanted to be

here to introduce one of our witnesses. I haven’t seen him yet.

We have room for our third panel, Mr. Leonard Lock. Mr. Lock,

if you would like to come up, we might as well have you all at the

same time. We are grateful for our friend from Virginia, Mr. Pickett. You can join us up here, if you would like to or wherever you

are comfortable. We will turn to our friend from Virginia, colleague,

Owen Pickett, to any opening statement he may have and any introduction of witnesses he may want to cover

STATEMENT OF THE HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for

this opportunity. I know you are having a very busy hearing this

morning, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to come

here and introduce to the committee Mr. Reese Lukei of Virginia

Beach. He is a gentleman who not only talks about matters involving the National Trail System, but I think perhaps his record of actually using the system either equals or exceeds that of just about

anyone else I have ever had occasion to be associated with. So he

comes here today with a clear and fully justified bias in favor of

the National Trail System, and yet he brings an objective and realistic view that has been built upon, his own experience in using the

system, and in helping others and encouraging others to use it also.

So I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Lukei here today.

I commend him for coming and lending his support, and I thank

you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present him
25

and tell you a little bit about his background in the National Park

System and what it means to him and to our Nation.

[The statement of Mr. Pickett follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF VIRGINIA

The American Discovery Trail, administered by the American Trails Society, is

our nation’s first coast to coast multi-use hiking trail. The trail is a 6,356 mile long

route that links a patchwork of trails—35 percent existing, the others newly created—that will serve as a connector between the east and west coasts of the United

States and inspire interest in outdoors by providing new and better places to explore

nature. Although the trail has already been mapped across America, it still needs

to be authorized by this Committee in order to be included as a part of the American Trails System.

I was introduced to the American Discovery Trail project by a constituent of mine,

Mr. Reese Lukei. Through his efforts, I became a cosponsor of H.R. 3250, the ‘‘American Discovery Trails Act 1996,’’ in the 104th Congress, and I am proud to be an

original cosponsor of this legislation in the 105th Congress. I am very pleased to

have one of my constituents in Washington, today to testify on behalf of this most

worthwhile legislation.

Mr. Lukei, an avid trail enthusiast, has been involved in community, state, and

national trail projects for several years. He is currently the National Coordinator

for the American Discovery Trail, the Vice President of Virginia Trails, an active

volunteer with the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located in Virginia Beach,

Virginia, and is licensed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to trap and

band raptors. Mr. Lukei has received numerous awards from the American Hiking

Society, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Fish and Wildlife Service for outstanding service and contribution to the trails community. And perhaps

the most important of all, he has hiked in all 50 states, every province and territory

in Canada, except Newfoundland, seven countries in Europe, and all 2,100 miles of

the Appalachian Trail. If this does not make Mr. Lukei an expert on the subject

of trails . . . I don’t know what would!

Reese, if I missed anything I apologize, but with limited time and such exceptional background and credentials, it would take me the rest of the morning to

present your achievements to the Committee. I would like to reaffirm my strong

support for this legislation and thank the Chairman for allowing to speak today.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being with

us. Mr. Weller, did you want to have any introductory remarks of

this panel?

Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you, I made reference to Mr. Lock who

is part of your panel, I want to thank you for the opportunity for

him to testify. Leonard Lock is chairman of the city of Ottawa Historic Preservation Commission and is a Lincoln scholar and has

been a real leader in conservation efforts and open space initiatives. I also want to point out that the Illinois-Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor, which has come up today, resulted from the efforts

of people like Leonard Lock.

Leonard was one of the leaders, almost a generation ago, in helping to establish the national heritage corridor and with the sponsorship of Tom Corcoran, who served in the Congress and was my

mentor in the political process. I want to welcome Mr. Lock and

also thank the Chairman for his opportunity to testify.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. You folks heard the rules. Can you handle it in 5 minutes? If you can’t, let me know, we will give you a

couple minutes longer, but really that is our rules, 5 minutes. You

see the light in front of you, it’s just like a traffic light. Green, go;

yellow start winding up; and red cut it off. We don’t give you a ticket if you go over, especially in a loose hearing like this one, but we

appreciate if you stay somewhat close. We will start with Mr.

Lillard and just go across.
26

STATEMENT OF DAVID LILLARD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

HIKING SOCIETY

Mr. LILLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David

Lillard. I am the President of the American Hiking Society. I would

like to thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee

today. First, I will address the issue of establishing the national

discovery trail category within the National Trail System Act and

then speak briefly on the authorization of the American Discovery

Trail.

The National Trail System Act has made possible 20 long-distance, primarily multi-State trails, but the current construction of

the Act does not fully address the changing demand for outdoor

recreation in America, which is at an all time high. As called for

by President Ronald Regan’s Commission on Outdoors, today’s families need outdoor recreation opportunities that are closer to home.

Also outlined by President Reagan’s Commission, trails and

greenways provide cost-effective recreation and bring focus to local

and regional park planning by linking existing parks and forests

with places where people live and work. The idea of linking people

with parks and linking existing parks and trails with one another

truly makes a system of the National Trail System, rather than a

collection of trails, yet no long distance trail designation within the

current Act encourages or accommodates trails which are developed

for such purposes.

So the national discovery trail category fulfills the Reagan Commission’s recommendations for such linkages. In addition to linking

existing parks and trails with one another and with communities,

discovery trails by their intent also link outdoor recreation with

local commerce. By bringing discovery trails into cities, small town

and suburbs, local businesses have provided a regional focus for

commercial activity.

Discovery trails also promise a vehicle for promoting regional

tourism, an opportunity already seized upon by the tourism offices

of the States of Nebraska, Colorado and West Virginia. So although

the benefits and primary use of discovery trails would be local and

regional, the new category of trail does indeed recognize corridors

that are nationally significant. Discovery trails are nationally significant because they provide the possibility of linkages we have

talked about. They invite States and local governments to think cooperatively about a national trail while making their own decisions

that meet their own needs and they allow Americans to discover

for themselves the regional diversity which is America, a discovery

that will foster an appreciation of shared American values and an

understanding of regional differences, whether East and West or

urban and rural.

Although they are nationally significant, discovery trails do not

require Federal management on trail lanes outside of Federal acreage. In fact, as we discussed, Discovery Trail categories require in

place a citizen-led, nonprofit organization to support the trail before it is even designated by Congress. Still, there is a very important Federal role in Discovery Trails, that of the convenient and

the technical assistance.

The Federal Government has a vast range of expertise and experience that would help State, local and other Federal
27

decisionmakers, as well as nonprofit organizations to coordinate

their activities and their planning. This is a bold idea for Federal

involvement in trails. It says to Americans, if your community

wants our assistance, we will participate in your efforts. It also

challenges States which develop discovery trails to utilize innovative means for conserving trail corridors, including conservation

easements, voluntary transfer of development rights, privately

funded land trust and conservancy, so I stress local and voluntary

and private and local involvement.

This emphasis on linkages makes the most of the American investment in parks and trails, the reliance on local decisionmaking,

and the private sector involved in the administration of Discovery

Trails have been enthusiastically embraced by the trail community

and the Members of this chamber, an enthusiasm illustrated by the

more than 50 cosponsors of the measure.

On the authorization of the American Discovery Trail within the

new category, the ADT fully meets the criteria for the National

Discovery Trail designation in H.R. 588. First, it meets the linkage

criteria by linking together cities of Washington, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Denver and also links nationally significant trails as

has been outlined.

Second, it does meet the qualification criteria of a nonprofit organization. The ADT Society is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) and was

formed specifically to promote and care for this trail. Clearly, at

the local level people want this trail. Third, it meets interstate

criterias as has been clearly outlined.

In closing, the American Discovery Trail is a nationally significant grand idea. It presents new ways of getting big things done

by putting them into the hands of people who care about them the

most. It has generated a lot of excitement within the States long

underserved by Federal recreation programs, such as Nebraska and

Kansas and others and these States deserve our gratitude and encouragement, along with Federal recognition and assistance on the

project. ADT was ahead of its time when it was conceived, but this

Congress gives us hope that its time has come. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Lillard can be found at the end of the

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Lukei.

STATEMENT OF MR. LUKEI, JR., NATIONAL COORDINATOR,

AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRIAL SOCIETY

Mr. LUKEI. Chairman Hansen and members of the subcommittee,

I am Reese Lukei, Jr.. I am and have been for the past 7 years,

the national coordinator of the American Discovery Trail, a project

begun in 1989 by the American Hiking Society and Backpacker

Magazine to, one, establish our Nation’s first coast-to-coast

multiuse recreational trail through a nationwide grass-roots effort.

Two, connect as many existing local and regional national trails

together as possible. Three, route the trail through large metropolitan cities, bringing it closer to where people live. And, four, provide

encouragement to local citizen groups and municipalities to develop

and maintain trails in their area. Under the National Trail System

Act, eight national scenic trails have been created under the model
28

established by the trail and are mostly located in remote areas,

avoiding urban areas.

In the past 30 years, a number of studies by Federal agencies,

the outdoor recreation industry and the housing industry, all indicate that recreational trail use has increased tremendously and is

expected to continue to do so, and that people want to recreate closer to where they live. The proposed long distance trail category, national discovery trails, and the American Discovery Trail, will recognize these trends.

The ADT is a first long-distance trail that has been intentionally

designed to link trails together and to pass through or near large

metropolitan areas. Thirty-two million Americans live within 20

miles of the 6,000, 356-mile route of the ADT. The American Discovery Trail connects five of the eight national scenic trails, 10 of

the 12 national historic trails and over 200 local and regional

trails.

Two of those trails are the proposed Lincoln National Historic

Trails, which—maybe it is going to be Lincoln National Historic

Trail, which Congressman Weller is here to speak to today and the

great western trail, which had legislation successfully sponsored

last year by Chairman Hansen. This has been accomplished

through the involvement of several thousand citizen volunteers

under the outstanding leadership of our 15 State coordinators who

paid all their own expenses.

Much credit is also due to the local, State and Federal land managers, town councils, planning commissions and economic development and tourism divisions, for their cooperation, assistance and

encouragement. We have been sensitive to private landowners with

whom we have held many meetings.

Of the 6,356 miles of the American Discovery Trail, only 58 miles

are on private property and all of that is on existing trails and with

the landowners’ permission. The ADT has provided incentive to

many local projects, such as the Ute Pass Corridor Trail in the

Pikes Peak area of Colorado.

I request that the written statement of Richard V. Bratton,

Mayor of Green Mountain Falls and Chair of the Pikes Peak Area

Council of Governments be made a part of the public record and

I quote from his written statement. ‘‘The ADT will provide a

unique and important connection between urban and back-country

trail systems. ADT will help us to realize a nonmotorized link between the second largest city in Colorado, Colorado Springs, and

the mountain communities that surround Pikes Peak. The concept

of the ADT has already been instrumental in assisting us in our

local fund-raising efforts, supporting grant requests and capturing

the interest of State, county and local elected officials. The ADT is

key to our success.’’ That is the end of his quote.

[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. LUKEI. The ADT is already producing economic benefits for

the communities along its route. Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg,

who were referred to earlier as having written the American Discoveries book of their experience, who laid the foundation of the

ADT’s route in 1990 and 1991 scouting expedition, comment in

their written statement to the subcommittee that trails attract

tourists and businesses that cater to trail travelers which are al-
29

ready springing up on many sections of the American Discovery

Trail.

On behalf of the ADT State coordinators, the thousands of citizen

volunteers and the land managers who have worked hard for 8

years to create the American Discovery Trail, a trail that millions

of Americans will use, I request that you recommend to your colleagues in the House of Representatives the passage of House bill

H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997.

Thank you for allowing me to present my comments and I believe

I can answer some of the questions that were previously presented

to some of the prior committee members.

[The statement of Mr. Lukei can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Theis.

STATEMENT OF BILL THEIS, MEMBER, S.T.O.P. (STOP TAKING

OUR PROPERTIES) STEERING COMMITTEE

Mr. THEIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am a former teacher, turned businessman. The property

rights movement first attracted my attention in 1989 as a result

of proposed legislation that would have expanded the Indiana

Dunes National Lake Shore in northwest Indiana. In 1994, I was

elected to serve a 4-year term as the trustee/assessor of Pine Township in Porter County, Indiana, and currently I serve the property

rights movement as a member of the Stop Taking Our Property

Steering Committee and the Great Lakes Regional Chair for the

Alliance for America.

I come before you today in total support of recreational trails. My

own youth has very fond memories of summers I spent hiking the

Appalachian trail when it was privately owned. This was back in

the very early sixties, late fifties. However, I find myself philosophically opposed to the idea the Federal Government should be

in the recreation business. I can’t find any authority for this type

of action in the Constitution.

Further, I find myself opposed to the concept of federally subsidized recreation. My own personal passion is fishing. One of the

best kept secrets in Northwest Indiana is the Lake Michigan fishing. We have wonderful lake trout and steelhead and king salmon

and cohoe salmon. I fish on two teams that fish the tournaments,

and I would not come before this body and ask you to subsidize my

hobby, and I don’t think that the Federal Government should be

getting involved in subsidizing other people’s hobbies.

It is very difficult for me to understand why this bill is even

being considered when congressional concern seems so focused on

balancing the budget without making cuts in social security and

Medicare. Therefore, I must stand firmly in opposition to House bill

588. However, I realize there are people who are philosophically opposed to my particular stand on this issue and if you do choose to

move forward with the legislation, I urge you to give serious consideration to the following suggestions.

The bill states no lands or interests outside the exterior boundaries can be taken. There is a problem here. In 1966, we could exchange the words we have heard here today so far on the trail system with the words, ‘‘Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore,’’ where
30

there was not an intent to take anybody’s home. It was going to

be strictly willing seller. It was going to be strictly voluntary and

strictly cooperative.

The end result was Thursday, September 5th, the U.S. Park

Service evicts woman and son. Despite all the promises, things

tend to change in Congress over the years, and I don’t know if anybody on this committee was here when that happened, but this is

one of over 700—and this is national parks figures, people who

have lost their homes and business in the Indiana Dunes National

Lake Shore. And I would like to present the Chairman, I will leave

it with the committee, a video tape of the Federal marshals pulling

the moving van up in front of the house, escorting her out of the

house and moving her lifetime possessions out.

Other examples—this type of legislation is always subject to future editions and changes and other examples include view scapes,

sound scapes, easements, covenants, buffer zones, and, yes, the exemption from condemnation gets lifted. The Appalachian trail

serves as a good example of how original trail acts tend to get expanded by these types of legislative devices.

I have with me today Mr. David Guernsey, who can answer questions in detail because he was here when this happened and he

also made this a part of the record of this committee, and we talk

here that the provisions in National Trail System Act of 1968, the

Park Service was to put up a 1,000-foot corridor to protect the Appalachian trail.

They offered to donate the land and the Park Service said, no,

and I see my yellow light went on here and I want to get some

other things so maybe we can address that in questions. Two, the

second suggestion I have is we put a sunset clause of some sort on

there so that this proposed plan doesn’t drag on and on and on and

on for years. Thirdly, the provision to enter into arrangements with

the trail-wide nonprofit organization is just unacceptable. If the

trail system is to have any chance of success, I would suggest we

look at the Indiana Rails to Trails Act that was passed last summer. It was very, very successful and it was agreed to by all and

there are several things in there that I bring to your attention, the

first of which is that any proposed trail had to have the official approval and participation of every unit of local government through

which the trail passed.

I have heard lots of testimony here today that everybody is in

favor of this. Nobody asked me. I did an instant poll with 300 property rights and resource organizations on Sunday when I was telling them about this bill and not a single one of the organizations

was contacted or asked about this. Despite the immense amount of

planning, these groups are being ignored. If it is to have any

chance of success, that needs to be included. There is also a little

thing called a fence requirement that takes care of the liability.

Any property owner, who is adjacent, and that is an issue we

haven’t addressed here today, is the adjacent property owners,

have issues of privacy and liability. In Indiana, any property owner

who requests a fence, that is a trail organization, is responsible for

putting that privacy fence up, which then, of course, limits the liability. So it brings us down to the three basic questions: Do we
31

want it, and who is we? Does this include all affected parties? Do

we need it? And I think we need to differentiate, especially in today’s budgetary times, between the wants and the needs. We face

that every day with our own township.

And thirdly, can we afford it? There is no mention in the bill

about moneys, but I am already hearing a figure of 360,000 here,

200,000 there, so this committee has a really tough decision to

make. Is the trail more important than our parents’ social security?

Is the trail more important than the medicare? Is the trail more

important than maybe giving some of the taxpayer money back to

the American public? Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

I will be glad to answer any questions.

[The statement of Mr. Theis can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Theis.

Mr. Lock, we will recognize you, sir.

STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. LOCK

Mr. LOCK. Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, my name is

Leonard Lock. I am from Ottawa, Illinois, which is the site of the

first Lincoln-Douglas debate, and since there is a question on the

floor concerning the name of the trail, I will try to address that

issue, if I may.

Tom Gilbert, who I talk to on the telephone all the time, wrote:

‘‘As you know, Lincoln heritage is one of the several important

themes of the proposed Illinois National Historic Trail, along with

Mississippian Indian culture, French exploration and transportation.’’ I am going to submit a proposal that will include all of

those, and, also, eventually, include the Congressman from Kentucky, that the Lincoln National Historical Trail, this would be

Phase 1. Phase 2 would go from Springfield to Vincennes, Indiana,

to of course, his birth place in Kentucky. All of these could be incorporated. This could be phase one.

Lincoln was a Member of Congress, as you know, and he made

a very important statement June 20, 1848, when he said that sugar

had been, for the first time, shipped from New Orleans to Buffalo,

New York. There was a navigational gap in the Nation, and the

canal, which is the ditch that put Chicago on the map, made that

become a reality.

Most of this information is included in my written statement,

and I am going to include that so that this should be read to get

the full impact. And as Congressmen, I am not trying to tell you

what to do, but Abraham Lincoln was a master at satire, and some

of these were hilarious. What he did to the former Attorney General that was a member of the legislature in the old capital in

Vandalia, Illinois, is hilarious. I urge you to read it. He also did

the same thing to David Dudley Field at the Chicago Rivers and

Harbors Convention in 1847, where 10,000 people came.

Lincoln wanted to be Illinois DeWitt Clinton. When he first ran

for public office, and incidentally he was defeated, he said he supported internal improvements. He never changed that, to his Presidency and his two annual messages to Congress. He told his friend

Joshua Speed in Springfield that ran a store, he wanted to be Illinois DeWitt Clinton. And he also made a speech in Vandalia, he
32

made it in Congress and he made it for the Chicago Rivers and

Harbors Convention. So he was associated with the canal.

For example, he came to hearings in my hometown of Ottawa for

legal claims against the canal. He also took a trip down the canal

with his family. He was in Washington, DC as a Congressman. He

went to Buffalo, and then he came down to the Great Lakes and

went down the entire canal on October 8, 1848, and he went as far

as Peoria, of course from LaSalle, Peru, he went by steamboat,

then went to Peoria, Illinois, and then by stagecoach to his own

home.

And here, to include everyone, for example, if I just may take,

the State of Illinois obtains its name from the great Village of the

Illinois, from which there was an SOS out a few years ago, that is

Save Our Site, and it was purchased by the State, and that is

where the Mission of the Immaculate Conception occurred, and

that is Pere Marquette. The other trails would be the Chicago Portage, Pere Marquette, W.D. Boyce, and Chief Shabbonah and Lincoln-Douglas Debate Trail.

And here are all the various things regarding the entire trail, the

Illinois-Michigan Canal, the Illinois River, and the branch to

Springfield. Presidential messages to the Congress are rarely noted

for their literary significance, but the annual message to Congress

of December 1, 1862, is Lincoln’s literary masterpiece.

In that, President Lincoln said (Dec. 1, 1862): ‘‘The military and

commercial importance of enlarging the Illinois-Michigan Canal

and improving the Illinois River is presented in the report of Colonel Webster to the Secretary of War, and now transmitted to Congress. I respectfully ask attention to it.’’

The story of the canal and the Illinois River is a story of Illinois

and the Nation. This historic travel began the transformation of a

backwards wilderness into the world’s richest reservoir of civilization’s blessing. The work of the pioneers should be preserved and

woven into the cultural life of present and future citizens of the

Nation, for school children in Illinois and across the Nation and

throughout the world sing:

‘‘We have an old mule named Sal. We want to ride on Mr. Lincoln’s national historic trail.’’ And in conclusion, this may be one

of the logos for the Lincoln National Historic Trail, which would

eventually include Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. In conclusion, I

might add, I have been told many times that a foreign visitor coming in to the United States is first interested in seeing Disney

Land, second, the Lincoln site.

[The statement of Mr. Lock can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I commented earlier about the

motorized versus nonmotorized aspect. How do you envision, Mr.

Lukei, the relationship in terms of motorized versus other uses of

the trail? Important uses like straight line roller blades.

Mr. LUKEI. Actual recreational and motorized uses only two or

three small sections of the trail, one in southwest Utah, on the

Piute Trail, which is actually an ATV trail, and the other are two
33

trails in which snowmobiles are allowed. One is a Hoover Valley

Nature Trail and one of the other trails in Iowa.

There is a distinction between motorized recreational use. We are

on a number of roads. They are mostly back country, farm-to-market roads, on which recreational vehicles, such as ATVs and snowmobiles are illegal, that is why they are called off-road vehicles.

Therefore, the roads we are on are roads which hiking, bicycling

and horseback riding are legal activities.

I would also point out that while currently the route is about one

one-third on existing trails, one-third on some type of dirt or gravel

road and many are roads that have limited access like Forest Service roads, and in Nebraska, the irrigation system out there has

maintenance roads which allow recreational use on them and we

follow some of those irrigation roadways, and the others are backcountry roads that, again, recreational motor use are not permitted

on.

So this is intended to be a nonmotorized recreational trail. There

is very little conflict in those areas with respect to motorized use.

Actually, in Mr. Hansen’s State of Utah, we were intentionally

routed on the Piute Trail near Circleville, by the Forest Service

and by the local citizens who built that trail.

Mr. VENTO. I understand that. I know even in the State of Minnesota, we have 15,000 miles of snowmobile trail and sometimes

there is a common use with the snowmobile and cross-country skiers and other types of uses. And we found out, because snowmobiles have sort of a cleat in the track that they actually cause a

lot of damage to the trail, you know, so they wear it down and the

maintenance costs have gone up, but they do pay a certain fee and

so forth so it can be maintained. But it is increasingly an issue

even there, much less within the voyagers.

Mr. Theis, we were pleased to find our way up here together

today and I read your testimony and I noticed that you feel the

Federal Government shouldn’t be involved in any type of recreation

activities because you think we have more important tasks. I suppose you made an exception for fishing, didn’t you.

Mr. THEIS. As a matter of fact, I didn’t.

Mr. VENTO. We were talking about fishing in Lake Michigan and

we talked about doing it in Lake Superior or some other puddle in

Minnesota, but you realize there is a lot of effort and investment

in terms of recreation in sport fishing by the Federal Government,

Fish and Wildlife Service, and, you know, dealing with invasive

species and a lot of other aspects.

Obviously fishing in Lake Michigan would look a lot different if

we didn’t do something about things that occur there, ruffies and

the invasive species. I am trying to think of the other muscles,

zebra muscles. Actually, you think we ought to get out of it and let

someone else do it. You were talking about sport fishing. You are

not a commercial fisherman, are you?

Mr. THEIS. I am sport fisher. It is my understanding in Indiana

the stalking and taking care of the lake is done by the DNR and

we are required to pay a fishing license and the better part of that

money goes toward that activity, so in a sense, all the sports fishermen are paying their own way.
34

Mr. VENTO. We would all like to think that, but if you look a little closer, you will find that general taxpayers pay a lot. We would

like to think they could pay their own way, and I suppose some

trail users feel they pay their way when they pay the income tax,

too.

Mr. THEIS. The State DNR, at least in Indiana, is constantly

making the legislature to raise the fishing license so they can cover

the cost, so I think a significant part is taken care of that way.

Mr. VENTO. We hear a lot about it. We went through a process

of raising fees for entrance users and any other way we can extract

it to the point we are now getting backlash from some corridors,

Mr. Chairman, about that, as they are implemented. It is interesting to me, the Forest Service, they always look better in Washington than they look on the ground in Minnesota and I would say

in Utah it is different, but in any case, I think they pay 10 or 15

percent at the most of what the cost is of running some of the agencies. And I think the same would be true of some of the forests or

the Fish and Wildlife Service, which we as sports persons depend

upon. I don’t object to it, I just wanted to make the observation.

I understand your concerns and I just think that that one ought

to receive a little more consideration.

Mr. HANSEN. Did you want to respond, Mr. Theis?

Mr. THEIS. Yes, I will respond and another comment comes to

mind, Mr. Chairman, if I can take a minute to do that. I think

maybe in the interest of fairness, if we are going to have fishing

and hunting licenses for fishing and hunting people, maybe we

should consider having hiking licenses for the hiking people so it

is at least partially subsidized. But on another thought, as I listen

here today, and I have done my research, a thought has come to

mind. There is an alternative here to all of this.

If nobody is objecting to the idea of a trail of a national significance and historic and good idea, the objection is what it might become above and beyond that. Well, that if that is really the only

purpose for it, maybe we don’t need legislation, and the idea came

to mind, as Mr. Bereuter talked about the Lewis and Clark Trail.

Senate Resolution 57 said God bless the Lewis and Clark Trail. It

is nationally significant. It is wonderful and we want to recognize

it, and that was the end of it. And perhaps with the trail, all we

need is a resolution, rather than a legislation that might be expanded and eventually lead to condemnation of property and whatever.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we can reduce ourselves to passing

commemoratives and probably everybody would be happy because

we wouldn’t do anything for or to someone. I want to comment on

the Illinois River Trail and I appreciate the work that has been

done by the witness, Mr. Lock, on this issue, but much of what you

talk about, of course, is the Illinois-Michigan Canal, and so I guess,

again, I will reiterate, you did explain a logic where you were going

to connect the birth place and the boyhood home and the Springfield site so maybe you want to comment about that further for me.

Mr. LOCK. Yes, I would. I have a photostatic copy of—the Lincoln

National Life Foundation has done a study including all the trails,

and so has Lloyd Ostenkoff in the back of his book, regarding Lincoln and his entire life and that includes, Illinois, Indiana and Ken-
35

tucky, the major States. That should be a goal of Congress, very

long-term, and this could certainly be phase one, and I think it is

equally as important. I think the debate site in Ottawa is equally

as important as his birth place in Kentucky and I would support

both.

If I may enter into the record, I did bring this along for the Library of Congress and all of Congress. It is called Lincoln’s Connection with the Illinois Michigan Canal and (also includes) the Illinois River, his return to Congress and his Invention and there was

an Abe Lincoln boat that went out of Morris, Illinois, and this is

available and I will give it to the Chairman for everyone in Congress.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Weller.

Mr. WELLER. Just a brief comment. I think Mr. Lock, who is a

scholar and a noted historian in the area with his knowledge of

Lincoln, has done a fine job of reinforcing Abraham Lincoln’s connection with Illinois and an area that would be included in the national trail, and I want to thank you for including Mr. Lock and

giving him the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Pickett.

Mr. PICKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice that this legislation places the administration of this trail system under the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with a competent trail-wide,

nonprofit organization, and other affected land managing agencies.

Mr. Lukei, I noticed that you were the national coordinator for the

American Discovery Trail Society.

How do you feel about this arrangement and do you think adequate provision is being made to involve the various voluntary organizations that are concerned with trails and hiking?

Mr. LUKEI. Yes, sir, I certainly do, and in fact the model that is

used worldwide for the management of trails is a model established

by the Appalachian Trail and while we are not building a trail that

is identified as a remotely located trail, the management of that

trail is a model for it and the reason for that is, as Katherine Stevenson, from the Park Service pointed out, the agencies need one

lead agency or one nonprofit organization, with which they can

communicate and enter into agreements.

There are actually 63 organizations that have responsibility for

maintaining and managing parts of the Appalachian Trail, but they

all operate under the umbrella organization of the Appalachian

Trail Conference. We foresee a very similar management situation

with respect to the American Discovery Trail. There would be one

nationwide organization, the American Discovery Trail Society,

which would have the overall responsibility and the umbrella responsibility, working with the 150 or so organizations that we have

already identified along the route. I think that is not only a very

efficient way, but it is the most effective way and the Appalachian

Trail has shown that is the way to manage these long distance

trails.

Mr. PICKETT. Thank you very much. I know the Appalachian

Trail has a great record of being a very successful undertaking and

if that is going to be used as a model, I feel better about the way

this legislation is going to be administered. I want to thank the
36

witnesses for being here today and for offering their testimony concerning this legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Appreciate the gentleman’s comments.

You have all raised some very interesting questions. This committee has wrestled with many of the problems concerning how we

do trails. We are talking designated trails here, but there are trails

through public lands and private land, all over the 50 States, basically.

The question, Mr. Lukie, you brought up motorized vehicles. It

is tough to determine. Go to the 1964 Wilderness Act. It doesn’t say

motorized, contrary to popular belief. It says mechanized, so when

some of these go through a wilderness area, frankly, we really don’t

even have a decision yet what is mechanized. It is to the eye of the

beholder. And to some people—is a backpack still mechanized? The

question came up in this committee and we argued it for 40 minutes one day.

I guess technically it is. Is an oarlock mechanized when a river

goes through a wilderness area? Technically, I guess it is. There

are very few things you can take, maybe like our Native Americans, you wouldn’t take too much. The question comes up, when

you are going parallel to an existing road, why not used a mechanized vehicle or a motorized vehicle, even, these little motor scooter-type things or motorized mountain bikes, I think they call them

Hondas or Yamahas or whatever they are, and the question comes

up by many of the bikers, and biking is a big thing.

As you know, in the State of Utah, Mohab has turned into what

is a biking capital. There are thousands of mountain bikes. Everyone has to have a $1,000 mountain bike now that is made out of

things that only went to the moon a few years ago and that is light

and can do the whole bit. We used to by Schwinn bicycles for $50.

Now, all my kids, they all have to have these mountain bikes that

are made out of things that I don’t even understand.

So the problem comes down to, because it is really kind of a

tacky problem, and I appreciate all of you folks addressing some of

these problems. We have to sit here and either turn our heads or

put our heads in the sand or make legislation that has a lot to do

with thousands and millions of folks. So you have to be kind of

careful on these things.

You folks are talking designated trails, that is one thing. Look

at the trails that are sandwiched all over America and Alaska. It

is amazing to me, and any suggestions you may have concerning

that would be more than welcome. The question on both of these

bills, I always admire my two colleagues who have come up with

these. These are bold, innovative, stimulating, intriguing ideas, but

they are always fraught with a few problems in them, and the ones

that are going to leap out on these bills, especially Mr. Bereuter’s

bill, will be acquiring private property.

There is a lot to be said for what the government should be in

and what it shouldn’t be in, I don’t argue that. The 10th amendment is clear on that, even though I think from the days of FDR,

the 10th amendment is a dinosaur, but it shouldn’t be. What do we

exempt and what don’t we exempt? I just want to thank my two

colleagues for very intriguing and interesting pieces of legislation
37

that they brought up and we will look forward to see how these

progress.

The gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I conclude by thanking you

for a hearing on the bill, 588. I would remind the subcommittee

what Daniel Burnham said when he laid out the plans for Chicago

after it burned down: Make no small plans. I like Mr. Lukie’s response to the question raised just a few minutes ago about the cosponsorship with the reference to the, what we call out in the West,

Mr. Pickett, the Appalachian, but I know you said Appalachian, regional trail, and you ought to be right, I suppose, since you live

closer to it. But I do think the experience there has demonstrated

why, in the dispute between the Forest Service and Park Service,

the sponsor of the legislation comes down on the sides of the Park

Service, believing there should be a single nonprofit organization,

which would work with a whole variety of other local organizations

which provide the volunteer, the labor and the skill and the care

for the trail. Again, thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you, gentlemen. Let me just point out that

what is done around here is predicated on who wants to get something accomplished. I noticed some of our witnesses talked about

NEPA, the Wilderness Act, FLPMA, all of those are very important

Acts. However, maybe it doesn’t prohibit the President of United

States from completely violating those things on September 18,

1996, and putting 1.7 million acres of monument to the State of

Utah, which doesn’t fit any of the criteria, which is my plug to

change the antiquities law, which I will be bringing to the floor in

a short time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the Chairman yield just one more time?

Mr. HANSEN. I will yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I notice I am seated in Mr. Pombo’s seat and that

is one more reason to exercise caution on the private land issue.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me just add my thanks to my colleagues and

witnesses and all the folks who have made a point to be here today.

We appreciate you coming and it has been very informative, and

I am looking forward to reading the information that Mr. Lock has

brought up. I hope I have the opportunity to read that, kind of

being a history buff on the gentleman we are talking about.

Thank you very much. This hearing will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111