H.R. 9159

Appalachian Trail Centennial Act

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CALDWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS, REGARDING H.R. 9159, A BILL TO ENHANCE THE PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAILS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

September 18, 2024

Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 9159, a bill to enhance the preservation, maintenance, and management of National Historic Trails and National Scenic Trails, and for other purposes.

The Department opposes H.R. 9159. We defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on those provisions of the bill affecting its role in managing the Appalachian Trail National Scenic Trail and National Forest System lands.

H.R. 9159 seeks to strengthen the role and authority of national trail partners through provisions that codify the concepts of “cooperative management” and “cooperative management system.” It establishes the Appalachian Trail Conservancy as the first Designated Operational Partner for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and it lays out an opportunity and criteria for additional national trails partners to become Designated Operational Partners for other national scenic and national historic trails.

Of particular note is Subsection 4(d), Protection of Property Rights, which authorizes a Designated Operational Partner to request that the Secretary concerned and the U.S. Attorney consider violations of property rights and make a determination on appropriate action within a prescribed time frame. Also of note is Subsection 4(f), Land and Resource Preservation Proposed Priority lists, which requires a Designated Operational Partner to periodically develop and submit to the Secretary concerned and the heads of any other appropriate Federal land management agencies a proposed priority list for land and resource protection for the applicable covered trail. The Secretary concerned must then prioritize the use of funds for land identified for Federal protection in the list, except when the Secretary has determined otherwise for a specific priority and, in that case, the Secretary must provide a written justification to the Designated Operational Partner.

Other provisions in H.R. 9159 include requirements and authorities related to cooperative agreements, volunteer services, comprehensive plans, visitation assessments, economic impact assessments, trail planning, appropriations, and a Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption.

America’s national scenic and historic trails form a remarkable network of well over 50,000 miles that protects and links together many of America's most significant natural, cultural, and recreational resources. Both types of trails are planned and administered under the authorities of the National Trails System Act (NTSA, 16 U.S.C. 1241-1251) and serve as the backbone of the National Trails System. These trails are unique in that they typically:

• include federal national trail administration responsibilities for coordination trail-wide;
• span hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and many jurisdictions;
• depend upon complex coordination among federal, Tribal, state, private, and non- governmental entities for local management, operations, and other cooperative trail activities, as appropriate, for large portions of national scenic and national historic trails;

However, little is standard about these trails. From the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, each national trail has its own unique identity, legislation, administration and management challenges. Additionally, the non-profit partners have vastly different structures, capacity, expertise and resources.

The Department has concerns that H.R. 9159 fundamentally alters the intent and implementation of the NTSA. We note that the authorities and opportunities within the NTSA already meet several of the collaborative objectives identified in H.R. 9159, including: direction for a public comprehensive plan process, authorities for cooperative agreements, guidance on carrying capacity considerations for implementation, and acquisition or protection planning information for each national scenic or national historic trail.

The Department notes that the NTSA describes cooperation and encouragement regarding management and operation outside of federally administered areas, and does not contemplate the concepts of cooperative management, a cooperative management system, or identify a singular Designated Operational Partner, as these terms are defined in H.R. 9159. These concepts significantly reshape the structure and administration of the National Trails System as envisioned in the NTSA and suggest trail-wide management or operational roles that may exceed the federal administration and coordination authorities assigned to the Department through the NTSA. Further, changes that significantly alter the NTSA should be considered as amendments to the act to avoid the potential for confusion or perceptions of conflicting legal requirements.

In addition, the Department notes that the NTSA does not envision a single partner elevated above other potential partners. In contrast, the H.R. 9159 appears to delegate unique powers through the Designated Operational Partner concept at the exclusion of other potential cooperative management partners, limiting the Secretary's ability to exercise federal discretion in the public interest. This exclusivity could be in conflict with existing agreements or other opportunities to enter into agreements to achieve local trail objectives. In addition, it is unclear if there may be unintended consequences for federal land managing agencies, Tribes, state and local governments, private landowners, or others with land management jurisdiction for trail management and operations if a Secretary identifies a single, trail-wide operational partnering organization. It is also crucial to understand the role envisioned and intended for “Designated Operational Partners,” particularly in relation to public engagement under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), land use planning, Comprehensive Plan development, approval/disapproval, and dispute resolution.

Subsection 4(b) of the bill allows for cooperative agreements with a Designated Operational Partner for a term of not more than 20 years. The Department notes that currently financial assistance agreements are awarded for no more than 5 years. This extended timeframe discounts the benefits of judicious review and evaluation that ensures effective and relevant partnerships. It also exceeds budgetary planning horizons of the Executive Branch. Additionally, any issues could be costly and burdensome if a 20-year partner is not performing adequately. It is also important to understand that relationships, needs and staffing change overtime.

The bill’s Protection of Property Rights provision raises a number of legal issues that the Department is continuing to review. We recommend that the bill sponsor also seek the views of the Department of Justice regarding the U.S. Attorney’s role as outlined in the provision.

Because the bill’s provision on Land and Resource Preservation Proposed Priority Lists delegates acquisition prioritization, an inherently governmental function, to a non-federal entity, we cannot support this provision. We strongly recommend deleting this provision in its entirety from the bill.

We would be happy to discuss our concerns further with the bill sponsor and the Subcommittee. While we share the goal of supporting and enhancing public-private partnerships, for the reasons discussed above, we oppose H.R. 9159.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee might have.