[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 3981, H.R. 4109, H.R. 4141 AND H.R. 4158
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3981, TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BIRTHPLACE
NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
H.R. 4109, TO AUTHORIZE THE GATEWAY VISITOR CENTER AT INDEPENDENCE
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
H.R. 4141, TO AMEND THE ACT AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE AREA, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF LANDS, WATERS, AND
NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
H.R. 4158, TO AUTHORIZE THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF CERTAIN
SECONDARY STRUCTURES AND SURPLUS LANDS ADMINISTERED AS PART OF ANY
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH THE PARK WAS ESTABLISHED, IF ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF NATURAL,
AESTHETIC, RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL VALUES IS ASSURED BY
APPROPRIATE TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, OR RESERVATIONS.
__________
JULY 16, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-342 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
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 ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 16, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 13
Bateman, Hon. Herbert H., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Borski, Hon. Robert A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 19
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 4
Fox, Hon. Jon D., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania............................................ 17
Gingrich, Hon. Newt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia and Speaker of the House of
Representatives............................................ 15
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statements of witnesses:
Front, Alan, Senior Vice President, Trust for Public Land.... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Jarvis, Destry, Assistant Director for External Affairs, The
National Park Service; accompanied by Suzanne Lewis,
Superintendent, Chattahoochee River National Recreation
Area....................................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Pickman, James, President, Gateway Visitor Center Corporation 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Tutwiler, Margaret Deb., Member of the Board of Trustees,
Kenmore Association, Inc................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Weaver, Blaine, Retired Financial Institution Executive...... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Additional material supplied:
Kirby, Peter, Southeast Regional Director, The Wilderness
Society, prepared statement of............................. 57
Text of H.R. 3981............................................ 58
Text of H.R. 4109............................................ 60
Text of H.R. 4141............................................ 65
Text of H.R. 4158............................................ 72
HEARING ON H.R. 3981, TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AND H.R. 4109, TO
AUTHORIZE THE GATEWAY VISITOR CENTER AT INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND H.R. 4141, TO AMEND THE ACT
AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL
RECREATION AREA TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA, AND TO PROVIDE
FOR THE PROTECTION OF LANDS, WATERS, AND NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND SCENIC
RESOURCES WITHIN THE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
AND H.R. 4158, TO AUTHORIZE THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF CERTAIN
SECONDARY STRUCTURES AND SURPLUS LANDS ADMINISTERED AS PART OF ANY
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH THE PARK WAS ESTABLISHED, IF ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF NATURAL,
AESTHETIC, RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL VALUES IS ASSURED BY
APPROPRIATE TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, OR RESERVATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. Good morning. We will hear testimony today on
four bills: H.R. 3981, 4109, 4141, and 4158.
The first bill for consideration is H.R. 4141 introduced by
Speaker Gingrich to expand the boundaries of the Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area. This bill will increase
protection for this endangered river and will allow for
increased recreation opportunities in one of the fastest-
growing areas of the country.
I understand the Park Service has had some concerns about
the landowner opt-out provision of the bill. Let me explain
that one reason I favor this approach is that, unless there is
sufficient public process so that all concerned can view the
interim map before this becomes law, we need this provision to
ensure that a landowner does not fall within the boundaries
unknowingly. The opt-out ability only applies until July 1,
1999, when the permanent map will be prepared. I understand
that the permanent [sic] map will be prepared this week and if
we can get out to the community and have some public process, I
would not object to removing the opt-out provision. Perhaps if
the Park Service and the Superintendent could be helpful in
that process, we could all agree.
I would like to commend the Trust for Public Land for their
hard work in preparing the maps and doing a great deal of the
work for the Park and I commend the Speaker for his diligence
in pursuing this needed expansion.
The next bill we will hear today is H.R. 3981, introduced
by Congressman Herbert Bateman. This bill would modify and
expand the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace
National Monument in order to include an area known as Ferry
Farm. The area, lying on the banks of the Rappa--how do you say
that?--Rappahannock--thanks, Herb--River contains George
Washington's boyhood home and is approximately 85 acres in
size.
H.R. 3981 also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
enter into a cooperative agreement with the Kenmore Association
for the management of the boyhood home site. This area will be
managed to preserve the cultural and natural resources
associated with the boyhood home of George Washington and also
to enhance the public understanding of Washington's childhood.
The next bill, H.R. 4109, introduced by Congressman Jon
Fox, would authorize the Gateway Visitor Center at Independence
National Historical Park. This bill authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with Gateway
Visitor Center Corporation to construct and operate a regional
visitor center on Independence Mall. The agreement would
authorize the cor-
poration to manage the center in cooperation with the Secretary
and to provide information, interpretation, and services to
visitors to Independence National Historical Park, its
surrounding historic sites, the city of Philadelphia, and the
region, in order to assist in the enjoyment of the resources
located in the greater Philadelphia area. Revenues generated by
the corporation activities will be used to operate and
administer the center.
The last bill is H.R. 4158, introduced by Congressman
Roscoe Bartlett, the National Park Enhancement Protection Act.
H.R. 4158 would give the Secretary of the Interior full
discretion to review whether lands or structures within
national historical parks are secondary structures or surplus
lands and not consistent with the reasons the park was
established. After such review, if the Secretary determines it
to be in the public interest, he may sell, lease, permit the
use of, or extend a lease or use permit for those lands and
structures determined to be surplus or secondary structures.
Any revenues generated from these lands or structures will be
deposited in a special trust fund in the Treasury and will be
available to the Secretary without further appropriation for
operation, maintenance, improvement of, or for the acquisition
of land or interests for the national park system unit which
originated the proceeds.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing. We will
hear testimony on four bills, H.R. 3981, H.R. 4109, H.R. 4141
and H.R. 4158.
The first bill for consideration is H.R. 4141 introduced by
Speaker Gingrich to expand the boundaries of the Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area. This bill will increase
protection for this endangered river and will allow for
increased recreation opportunities in one of the fastest
growing areas of the country. I understand the Park Service has
some concerns about the land owner opt out provision in the
bill. Let me explain that one reason I favor this approach is
that unless there is a sufficient public process so that all
concerned can view the interim map before this becomes law, we
need this provision to insure that a landowner does not fall
within the boundaries unknowingly. This opt out ability only
applies until July 1, 1999 when the permanent map will be
prepared. I understand that the interim map will be prepared
this week and if we can get this out to the community and have
some public process, I would not object to removing the opt out
provision. Perhaps if the Park Service and the Superintendent
could be helpful in that process we could all agree. I would
like to commend the Trust for Public Land for their hard work
in preparing the maps and doing a great deal of the work for
the Park and I commend the Speaker for his diligence in
pursuing this needed expansion.
The next bill we will hear today is H.R. 3981, introduced
by Congressman Herbert Bateman. This bill would modify and
expand the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace
National Monument in order to include an area known as Ferry
Farm. The area, lying on the banks of the Rappahannock River,
contains George Washington's Boyhood Home and is approximately
85 acres in size. H.R. 3981 also authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Kenmore Association for the management of the Boyhood Home
Site. This area will be managed to preserve the cultural and
natural resources associated with the boyhood home of George
Washington and also to enhance public understanding of
Washington's childhood.
The next bill, H.R. 4109, introduced by Congressman Jon
Fox, would authorize the Gateway Visitor Center at Independence
National Historical Park. This bill authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with Gateway
Visitor Center Corporation to construct and operate a regional
visitor center on Independence Mall. The agreement will
authorize the Corporation to manage the Center, in cooperation
with the Secretary, and to provide information, interpretation,
and services to visitors to Independence National Historical
Park, its surrounding historic sites, the city of Philadelphia,
and the region, in order to assist in the enjoyment of the
resources located in the greater Philadelphia area. Revenues
generated by the Corporation activities will be used to operate
and administer the Center.
The last bill is H.R. 4158, introduced by Congressman
Roscoe Bartlett, the National Park Enhancement and Protection
Act. H.R. 4158 would give the Secretary of the Interior full
discretion to review whether lands or structures within
national historical parks are secondary structures or surplus
lands and not consistent with the reasons the park was
established. After such review, if the Secretary determines it
to be in the public interest, he may sell, lease, permit the
use of, or extend a lease or use permit for, those lands and
structures determined to be surplus lands or secondary
structures. Any revenues generated from these lands or
structures will be deposited in a special fund in the Treasury
and will be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation, for operation, maintenance, improvements of, or
for the acquisition of land or interests for the national park
system unit which originated the proceeds.
We are very pleased to have the sponsors of these bills
here with us today. I also thank all the other witnesses here
today and look forward to their testimony.
Mr. Hansen. We are very pleased that most of the sponsors
are here. And before I turn to my friend from American Samoa, I
would ask Mr. Bateman, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Fox if they would come
up and take their seats, and I understand the Speaker will be
coming in. So we'll have you ready to go. Sit wherever you're
comfortable. And Mr. Borski, please.
I will turn to the gentleman from American Samoa.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the chairman and I would
certainly like to offer my personal welcome to our
distinguished colleagues who are sponsors of these pieces of
legislation. I'd like to personally welcome them this morning.
Mr. Chairman, although all of the bills before the
Subcommittee today are park related, they are very different in
what they seek to accomplish. H.R. 3981, which was introduced
by the gentleman from Virginia, my good friend Mr. Bateman,
would add an 85-acre parcel known as the Ferry Farm to the
George Washington Birthplace National Monument. This new
addition follows action by the Congress of 5 years ago that
added 12 acres to this park unit.
H.R. 4109, introduced jointly by my good friends, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox, and my good friend Mr.
Borski, authorizes the National Park Service to enter into a
cooperative agreement with a non-profit corporation to
construct and operate a visitors' center on national parks land
within Independence National Historical Park. With some of the
controversy that has been generated from proposed public-
private partnerships, especially at Gettysburg National
Military Park, I think we will want to look closely at this
measure.
Mr. Chairman, I have concerns with H.R. 4141, as introduced
by the Honorable Speaker Mr. Gingrich. I am unaware of any
feasibility or suitability study being done on this substantial
addition to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.
The inclusion of language allowing landowners to opt out of the
park is also troubling. In addition, it seems that the
Appropriations Committee is getting out in front of the
authorizing committee on this proposal by providing some $15
million in land and water conservation funding, even as they
cut back the National Park Services' land and water
conservation funding request for the entire National Park
Service by nearly 50 percent. Evidently the National Park
Service also has a number of concerns and questions with the
legislation and I will want very closely to hear from not only
our Speaker, but the representatives of the Park Service.
The same can also be said, Mr. Chairman, for H.R. 4158,
introduced by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett, which
authorizes the disposal of certain land or structures at
national historical parks. And I want to know whether this is a
policy we want to embark on and I'm very interested to raise
these issues with the testimonies that will be provided by the
officials of the National Park Service this morning.
And, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the witnesses for their
presence and look forward to hearing their testimony. Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. In deference to the Speaker, who's
on a very tight schedule, we thought we'd let him go first.
However, he doesn't happen to be here. I understand he's coming
up the stairs. So if that's all right with everyone----
[Laughter.]
In the State legislature, we used to saunter at times like
this. I don't know what we do here. We'll just wait.
Mr. Bateman. Pleased to defer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Tell me that he's not quite that close, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bateman--because we have Mr. Borski and Mr. Fox running
the same piece of legislation, possibly we'll start--Herb, if
it's OK, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT H. BATEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Bateman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Committee.
I'm here today to speak to you about an important effort to
preserve one of the most important historical properties in the
nation, George Washington's boyhood home, Ferry Farm. Ferry
Farm, located on the Rappahannock River, across from historic
Fredericksburg in Stafford county, Virginia, was the site of
George Washington's formative years. In 1738, when he was 6
years old, his family moved to Ferry Farm where he lived until
he reached young manhood.
At Ferry Farm, the hackneyed phrase ``George Washington
slept here'' takes on real meaning. It was here that the young
Washington threw a coin across the Rappahannock River, chopped
down the fabled cherry tree, and uttered the words, ``I cannot
tell a lie.'' It was here that he suffered family tragedies,
including the death of his sister Mildred in 1740 and of his
father in 1743. It was here that he learned the craft of
surveying and developed the character, will, and determination
to overcome difficult obstacles that enabled him to lead the
armies of the new nation to victory in America's Revolution and
to become our first and arguably our greatest President.
There can be no doubt of the historical significance of the
property, as you read more extensively in the briefing
statement attached to my testimony. The statement recently
prepared by the National Park Service researchers. A 1991
archeological investigation of the property revealed the
presence of highly significant ma-
terial dating to Washington's occupancy of the property. The
Park Service has determined that the buried archeological
resources and the ability of the site to yield important
information on the life of George Washington clearly indicate
that the site is of national historic landmark quality.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Bateman. Moreover, the post-Washington history of the
site is of significant historic interest. Union soldiers
marched across the property constructed a pontoon bridge
crossing of the Rappahannock during the first battle of
Fredericksburg. The archaeologists concluded that the 18th and
19th century archeological sites and the landscape features on
the property, quote, ``create an exciting and powerful
interpretive setting,'' unquote. The juxtaposition of the
artifacts from the principal founding father of our nation and
from the terrible civil war provide a unique educational
opportunity for generations of Americans to understand the
birth and fitful growth of our nation in its infancy.
It is truly remarkable that such a significant portion--
more than 80 acres--of the original Washington property has
remained undeveloped for over two centuries. Yet this property
has and still is threatened by development. Stafford County is
one of the fastest-growing localities in the greater Washington
metropolitan area. Much of the property surrounding Ferry Farm
has already been developed.
The Kenmore Association do deserve a tremendous amount of
credit for this. Being a non-profit organization, founded in
1922, to preserve the home of George Washington's sister,
Betty, the association admirably intervened 1996 to prevent the
property from being developed as a Wal-Mart shopping area.
Kenmore, however, is a private, non-profit entity. It cannot
protect this property in perpetuity. Only the Federal
Government, through the National Park Service, can ensure that
the property is protected for all future generations.
This is the purpose of H.R. 3981. The legislation before
the Subcommittee would enable the Park Service to obtain a
historical preservation easement to the property. To do so, the
property must first be included within the boundaries of a unit
of the National Park Service. The bill, therefore, authorizes
the Park Service to include the property within the boundaries
of the George Washington Birthplace National Monument. This
would enable the Park Service to acquire an interest in the
property, in this case, a historical preservation easement. The
legislation also clarifies that the Park Service may enter into
a cooperative agreement with the owners of the property, which
would be Kenmore Association, to ensure that the property is
managed in accordance with National Park Service guidelines for
historic preservation.
This legislation is an outstanding example of the type of
public-private partnership that we in the Congress should be
striving to implement. Because Kenmore would retain title to
the property, all costs associated with restoration of the
property, developing interpretive structures, conducting
archeological excavations, maintaining the property, and any
liability would be borne by Kenmore. The Park Service would
only incur the one-time cost of the easement but would, in
return, ensure that this property is permanently pre-
served and managed in accordance with Park Service guidelines.
Kenmore has prepared a long-range plan for the property and has
had preliminary discussions with the Park Service about a
management plan.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, for your patience in providing me this
opportunity to discuss this important legislation. As the
member representing the First District of Virginia, I have a
keen awareness of the need to preserve America's heritage. The
First District, which I like to call America's First District,
is home to Williamsburg, Jamestown, Yorktown, Fredericksburg,
and so many other sites of profound importance to the
understanding of our nation's history. Ferry Farm, George
Washington's boyhood home, is without question of great
historical significance. I urge you to favorably report H.R.
3981 so that it may be enacted in this session of Congress, and
thereby ensure that the boyhood home of our first President is
preserved for posterity.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bateman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Herbert H. Bateman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to speak to you about an
important effort to preserve one of the most important
historical properties in our nation--George Washington's
Boyhood Home, Ferry Farm. Ferry Farm, located on the
Rappahannock River across from historic Fredericksburg in
Stafford County, Virginia, was the site of George Washington's
formative years. In 1738, when he was 6 years old, his family
moved to Ferry Farm where he lived until he reached young
manhood.
At Ferry Farm, the hackneyed phrase ``George Washington
slept here'' takes on real meaning. It was here that the young
Washington threw a stone across the Rappahannock River, chopped
down the fabled cherry tree, and uttered the words, ``I cannot
tell a lie.'' It was here that he suffered family tragedies,
including the death of his sister, Mildred in 1740, and of his
father in 1743. It was here that he learned the craft of
surveying and developed the character, will, and determination
to overcome difficult obstacles that would enable him to lead
the armies of the new nation to victory in the American
Revolution and to become our first and arguably our greatest
President.
There can be no doubt of the historical significance of the
property. As you may read more extensively in the briefing
statement attached to my testimony--a statement recently
prepared by National Park Service researchers--a 1991
archeological investigation of the property revealed the
presence of highly significant material dating to the
Washington occupancy of the property. The Park Service has
determined that the buried archaeological resources and the
ability of the site to yield important information on the life
of George Washington, clearly indicate that the site is of
national historic landmark quality.
Moreover, the post-Washington history of the site is of
significant historic interest. Union soldiers marched across
the property and constructed a pontoon bridge crossing of the
Rappahannock during the first battle of Fredericksburg. The
archeologists concluded that the 18th and 19th century
archeological sites and landscape features on the property
``create an exciting and powerful interpretative setting.'' The
juxtaposition of artifacts from the principal Founding Father
of our nation and from the terrible civil war provide a unique
educational opportunity for generations of Americans to
understand the birth and fitful growth of our nation in its
infancy.
It is truly remarkable that such a significant portion--
more than 80 acres--of the original Washington property has
remained undeveloped for over two centuries. Yet this property
has--and still is--threatened by development. Stafford County
is one of the fastest-growing localities in the greater-
Washington metropolitan area. Much of the property surrounding
Ferry Farm has already been developed. The Kenmore Association,
which is a non-profit organization founded in 1922 to preserve
the home of George Washington's sister, Betty, admirably
intervened in 1996 to prevent the property from being
developed. Kenmore, however, as a private non-profit entity,
cannot protect this property in perpetuity. Only the Federal
Government, through the National Park Service, can ensure that
this property is protected for all future generations.
That is the purpose of H.R. 3981. The legislation before
the Subcommittee would enable the Park Service to obtain a
historical preservation easement to the property. To do so, the
property must first be included within the boundaries of a unit
of the National Park Service. The bill, therefore, authorizes
the Park Service to include the property within the boundaries
of the George Washington Birthplace National Monument. This
would enable the Park Service to acquire an interest in the
property, in this case an historical preservation easement. The
legislation also clarifies that the Park Service may enter into
a cooperative agreement with the owner of the property to
ensure that the property is managed in accordance with National
Park Service guidelines for historic preservation.
This legislation is an outstanding example of the type of
public/private partnership that we in Congress should be
striving to implement. Because Kenmore would retain title to
the property, all costs associated with restoration of the
property, developing interpretive structures, conducting
archaeological excavations, maintaining the property, and any
liability would be borne by Kenmore. The Park Service would
only incur the one-time cost of the easement, but would, in
return, ensure that this property is permanently preserved and
managed in accordance with Park Service guidelines. Kenmore has
prepared a long-range plan for the property and has had
preliminary discussions with the Park Service about a
management plan.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for providing me this opportunity to discuss this
important legislation with you. As the member representing the
First District of Virginia, I have a keen awareness of the need
to preserve America's heritage. The First District, which I
like to call America's First District, is home to Williamsburg,
Jamestown, Yorktown, Fredericksburg, and so many other sites of
profound importance to the understanding of our nation's
history. Ferry Farm, George Washington's Boyhood Home, is
without question of great historical significance. I urge you
to favorably report H.R. 3981 so that it may be enacted in this
session of Congress, and thereby ensure that the boyhood home
of our first President is preserved for posterity.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.004
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bateman. Appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Bartlett, we want to turn the time to you, sir. Would
you pull that mike over close to you? I'd appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. H.R. 4158 is a very
narrowly drawn bill to accomplish a very simple, single
purpose. Through the years, the Congress has given the Park
Service funds that could be used only for purchasing properties
that were outside the park boundaries, but were needed in order
to protect the viewscape of the park. Parks like Gettysburg--
there are a number of farms outside Gettysburg that are not
owned by the Park Service, but they simply have an easement
there so that those parks cannot be developed.
But the Congress through the years has mostly given money
to the Park Service that could be used only for purchasing
lands that could not used for purchasing easements. As a matter
of fact, most of the lands that have been acquired to protect
the parks have been acquired fee simple by purchasing the
lands, rather by purchasing easements, simply because the Park
Service had no flexibility. They were given money that could be
used only for purchase of the lands.
What this legislation attempts to do is to permit the Park
Service to use their good judgment. By the way, it is not
obligatory, not mandatory in any way. The Park Service would
not have to do one thing if they do not wish to. But if they
wish to, this legislation would permit the Park Service to
designate which parts of those lands which they have acquired
to protect the park, where the purpose could be served just as
well if the lands were to return to the private sector, go back
on the tax rolls, and the Park Service would retain an
easement.
We have placed language in the bill which we feel is very
clear to authorize the private ownership and use of certain
secondary structures and surplus lands--that is lands that are
not the essence of the park, but were acquired to protect the
park--administered as part that are not consistent with the
purposes for which the park was established--that is, not the
essence of the park--if adequate protection of natural,
aesthetic, recreational, cultural, and historical values is
assured by appropriate terms, covenants, conditions, or
reservations.
For instance, if a farm outside of Antietam, if that farm
were to be sold back to the private sector, easements could be
put on it requiring that that farm must remain a farm in
perpetuity, that the only way it could be farmed is with horses
if that was what the Park Service desired. Now we--all of our
farmers are not Amish, but we have enough Amish farmers that
I'm sure they could find Amish farmers that would farm those
farms with horses. So that when you were visiting this historic
park, the viewscape would look like it looked when the battle
occurred.
This is very simple legislation and I cannot understand how
it could be misunderstood, but apparently it can because just
at 9 this morning, we got a communication from the Park Service
and apparently later today they're going to testify that they
are opposed to this legislation. But the reasons they state are
not consistent with the bill itself: ``We do not view any land
within a national park to be surplus.'' Neither do we. That is
not the intent of this bill.
The intent of this bill is simply to permit the Park
Service to use their good judgment when we not permit them to
use their judgment in the past and we gave them moneys that
they could use only for purchasing lands to now use their good
judgment to decide whether or not they need to retain those
lands fee simple or whether they could meet the needs of the
Park Service by simply retaining appropriate easements on those
lands.
Now there is one unique situation. Let me take just a
moment. You're going to hear about it a little late because you
have a witness. This is a unique situation relative to the C&O
Canal. Now the C&O Canal is an historic park and it was the
towpath and the canal. About 25 years ago, the Park Service
decided that they would like to enlarge that Canal, that park.
So apparently someone in Washington sat down and drew on paper
lines that were so many feet from the Canal and towpath. And
then they acquired properties within those boundaries.
When they acquired some of those properties, when you
actually went onsite--you will hear the witness testify today--
some of those properties are about 70 feet above the towpath,
up an essentially vertical cliff, and you cannot even see the
properties from the towpath. They are not in the viewscape of
the C&O Canal and, really, their acquisition in no way
protected the canal because they were not even in the viewscape
of the canal. Yet right across the Potomac River, there is all
sorts of commercial development that is clearly within view of
the C&O Canal and that has not been protected by the Park
Service. So this is a unique situation where these lands may,
by definition of the Park Service, be within the park.
But, ordinarily, our bill is not addressing lands within
the park. It is addressing only lands that have been acquired
to protect the park. And it's only these lands that the bill is
meant to apply to. And had we given the Park Service the
flexibility in the past of using the money we gave them to
either purchase lands or to purchase an easement on the land
and to use the remainder of the money for improving the park,
the majority of the time they would have purchased an easement
and used the remainder of the money for improving the park.
This legislation now will permit them to go back and take
any of the lands that we have required them in the past to
acquire in fee simple, to sell those lands, keeping appropriate
easements, and to use the revenues generated from that to
improve the local parks. Those moneys do not go back into some
big black hole inside the Beltway. They go into a fund that can
be used for improving the local parks.
Again, this legislation is not mandatory. It is only
permissive. The Park Service does not have to do one thing if
they wish. And, contrary to the analysis of the Park Service--
and they will testify a little later--we are not talking about
lands within the park. Nobody wants to sell the Liberty Bell or
to put strip malls inside Yo-
semite Park. This only relates to lands outside the park that
are required to protect the park where that purpose could have
been achieved just easily by acquiring a scenic easement. The
lands would still stay on the tax roll. Someone else would pay
for maintaining those lands. And we think this is legislation
which is in the best interests of the Park Service and our
citizens, the users of the park, and the taxpayers.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
The next bill we'll hear is H.R. 4141, introduced by
Speaker Gingrich, to expand the boundaries of the Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area. Speaker, we'll turn to you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. NEWT GINGRICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Gingrich. Thank you very much for allowing me to
comment and to share with you. I have some material I'd like to
submit for the record, if I could, and then I'll just talk in
general.
Mr. Hansen. OK.
Mr. Gingrich. That material includes letters of support
from various Georgians, including the Governor.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Gingrich. Now the essence of this is pretty
straightforward. The Chattahoochee River National Recreation
Area has been very, very successful. It's very intensely used.
The Chattahoochee River itself is ranked as one of the ten most
endangered rivers in the country and it provides the drinking
water for the Atlanta metropolitan area and for about half the
population of Georgia. In fact, it is--The Chattahoochee is the
smallest river basin to serve as the major water supply for a
metropolitan area in the United States, which makes the
challenge of it particularly difficult and it's compounded
because in the area of the Chattahoochee above the city of
Atlanta, the population growth is extraordinary. It's the
second most rapidly growing area in the country. It's had
400,000 people move in since 1990 and continues to grow at a
dramatic rate.
We have an opportunity, by expanding the recreation area,
to save for the future both the quality of water of the river
as it goes toward Atlanta and the quality of recreational
opportunities in a way that's psychologically very important.
And local citizens working together, led by people from a River
Keepers Organization, which is a private group, but reaching
out across a very wide range of Georgia organizations, have
both developed a plan working with the Park Service, which is a
public-private partnership in which a variety of developers and
landowners have agreed to give easements. Others have agreed
they would sell the land or swap the land.
There is a proposal--and I want to commend Chairman Ralph
Regula who's been very aggressive at looking for ways to get
matching money to make sure that the citizens of the country
were making investments where we could stretch the Federal
dollar as far as possible. We believe it is possible that, for
$25 million of Federal money, we will be able to ultimately
leverage $90 million of State, local, foundation, and private
money. Roy Richards, a leading industrialist in Georgia, has
led the project to get the local money. The State of Georgia
has allocated $15 million already. There are a number of
foundations and corporations that have indicated they would be
committed.
In addition, we believe that the legislation protects
property rights and establishes a negotiated relationship in
which the Park Service will work to develop a 2,000 foot
corridor on each side of the river and will work with private
landowners in a way that I think will be a remarkable
partnership.
Finally, I'd just like to share a quote from the River
Keepers' guide to the Chattahoochee, a book written by Fred
Brown and Sherry Smith, with the support of my good friend
Sally Bathay. They wrote, ``Only God can make a river and he's
not making any more.'' And I think that our view, quickly, in a
lot of areas, is that the Chattahoochee is so central both to
our water supply and to the quality of life that being able now
to proactively save the areas along the river prior to their
being developed and dramatically increasing the runoff is both
psychologically sound in quality of life and economically sound
in quality of water. And having the level of local
participation we do know, we believe we have proven that there
is a massive public commitment to work with the Federal
Government to expand the recreation area and to save the river.
And I very much appreciate you allowing me to come today
and to testify and I'd be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrich follows:]
Mr. Hansen. Appreciate your presence, Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, you
have any questions for Speaker Gingrich?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, it's a rare opportunity and
it's certainly a privilege and honor for this Subcommittee to
have our Speaker grace us this morning with his presence, and
certainly I would be the last person to question the
gentleman's expertise and knowledge and understanding of the
Chattahoochee River and problems associated with the proposed
legislation, but I would like to say that we're, indeed, very
honored to see that the third highest officeholder in the land
IS here with us. And I don't how the gentleman is able to take
time to take care of the situation in Georgia when he has
national issues that confronts him every day. But certainly we
really, really thank you for your being here, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gingrich. Listen, my good friend, as you remember from
your own election experiences, this body was designed by the
Founding Fathers. If you don't take care of the folks back
home, you don't get to take care of the Nation either.
[Laughter.]
And, in addition, I used to teach environmental studies.
I've been actively involved with the Chattahoochee River now
for some 28 years, starting in 1970. And I've had a very long
involvement with the Georgia Conservancy. The three-State water
compact between Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and the Federal
Government was actually finalized in a 15-hour meeting in my
office in Atlanta, which I chaired because they couldn't get it
solved. And I commend Erskine Bowles for having helped--part of
the Clinton Administration having helped make that possible.
So I've had a very long, intimate involvement with the
Chattahoochee, and the fact is I would guess 20, 30 times a
year my wife and I walk somewhere along the Chattahoochee, so
we've personally experienced the treasure that we have in that
recreation area. That's why to me this is something--I'm
honored the Committee would allow me to come over--the
Subcommittee would allow me to come over and testify in favor
of the bill and I hope at some point you'll look favorably on
its being reported.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If the chairman would yield further,
certainly, to thank the Speaker for his comments, staff has
just informed me that another contributor to the Chattahoochee
River and this formation of the legislation and the passing,
certainly my former boss and a privilege I had working with the
gentleman, the late Congressman Phil Burton. And just because
of that, Mr. Chairman, I will ensure the Speaker that I will go
out of my way to make--and I sincerely hope that also that our
friends from the National Park Service will be cooperative in
seeing that maybe we should be able to work something out on
this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions,
but I do want to say that I particularly appreciate the
provision in this legislation that apparently some oppose to
allow private property owners who wish to opt out of this
legislation. But also I'm impressed and I salute the Speaker
and others involved for raising so much of this through non-
Federal money.
About 4 or 5 years ago, at the request of my friend John
Wilkinson, who's now with the World Bank but who was at the
Kennedy Center at the time, I introduced a bill that we passed
to partially privatize the Kennedy Center so they could have
more control over the money that they raised because--and I
think Mr. Borski was involved in that also. But the Kennedy
Center was willing to raise most of their own budget. And so
I'm always impressed when we have organizations who come in
here who are willing to raise most of the money for some
significant project. So I think this is a great piece of
legislation and I salute you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you.
Mr. Gingrich. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate your
coming and your testimony and we intend to move this bill
along.
Mr. Fox, we'll turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON D. FOX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Chairman
Hansen, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, and Congressman Duncan for
allowing us to speak on behalf of the Fox-Borski bill this
morning.
H.R. 4109 would authorize the Gateway Visitor Center at
Independence National Historic Park. The center will have a key
role in the promotion of attractions to the Delaware Valley and
help tourists better access information about these
attractions. The visitor center would truly be a gateway to the
parks and attractions in the Philadelphia area. The city of
Philadelphia and other re-
gional leaders support the center. By passing this legislation,
the Congress will allow the Gateway Visitor Center, a non-
profit corporation, to work with the National Park Service to
enhance public tourist opportunities.
Every child learns, Mr. Chairman, in elementary school
about the importance of Philadelphia in the colonial history.
the Second Continental Congress held in Philadelphia resulted
in our Declaration of Independence. The Constitutional
Convention, also convened in Philadelphia, resulted in the
great nation's current form of government in 1787. The result,
of course, of that convention was our U.S. Constitution which
is now the model for all other democracies in the world.
The Philadelphia area also has a number of historical sites
that would be better served by the enhanced promotion of the
center. As you know, Pennsylvania was the home not only to
Benjamin Franklin, Betsy Ross, Robert Fulton, U.S. Speaker
Muhlenberg, President Buchanan, and the founder of our
Commonwealth, William Penn. The Gateway Visitor Center will
enhance tourist enjoyment, increase the knowledge of students'
history, and better remind citizens of the roots of our
democracy.
Almost everyone knows about the bitter, winter encampment
of the Continental Army at Valley Forge. What many people do
not know is that it is just a short ride from Independence Mall
in downtown Philadelphia to the Valley Forge National Historic
Park which is so large it actually is in two districts, mine
and Curt Weldon's. And who can forget the dramatic crossing of
the Delaware River led by General Washington on Christmas Eve,
surprising the Hessian troops encamped in New Jersey and
resulting in the first in a number of successes for
Washington's troops.
While these historic sites are more well known through what
we learn in history class, it is just a small sample of what
the area has to teach us about our national history. The home
of John James Audubon in Mill Grove near Philadelphia located
in my district is the home of our nation's first
conservationist who left his land as a sanctuary for the birds
he was dedicated to protecting. Another historic battlefield is
located in Congressman Weldon's district. This is the Battle of
Brandywine.
Pennsylvania's preserved as well the Delaware Canal with
the canal and the mule barge in Congressman Greenwood's
district near Philadelphia. And the John Heinz Memorial
Wildlife Refuge in Tinicum Township. The list goes on as we
where Philadelphia became world famous not only for those
things I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, but also the Franklin
Institute, which utilizes a number of approaches to make
learning about science fun. And not far from there is the
heralded Philadelphia Museum of Art.
And the fact is that we are proud to be here today,
Congressman Borski and myself, to support this legislation. The
center will not only fulfill a key part of our strategic plan
for Independence National Historic Park, but will help
visitors, students, families, and America's future leaders
learn about our country and where it began.
Thank you very much and we appreciate the Committee's
favorable consideration of the legislation. We look forward to
any questions you may have.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Fox. Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Borski, I apologize. In our opening comments we should
have mentioned the important part you're playing on this and I
apologize to you that that was overlooked. We'll turn to you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. BORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Borski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Faleomavaega, and my friend, Mr. Duncan. Let me thank you for
the opportunity to come before the Subcommittee this morning in
support of H.R. 4109, legislation I have introduced with my
good friend Congressman Fox and every member of the city and
suburban delegation.
Every year, nearly 5 million visitors come to Philadelphia
and Independence National Historic Park to visit and learn
about the beginnings of this great country and the foundings of
democracy. I am proud to represent the park, which many
consider the crown jewel of the National Park Service. It's
home to the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, and the birthplace
of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States. We must do all we can to preserve it.
The present location of the visitors' center is situated in
an area with limited public transit access and on a narrow
street. The location for the proposed Gateway Visitors' Center
will offer increased access to visitors. I'm committed to the
development of this region and worked with my friend Mr. Fox
and other area members to make sure that recently passed TEA-21
contained $6.5 million dedicated for the construction of an
Independence Gateway Intermodal Transportation Center. This
transportation center will work in conjunction with the
Independence Mall renovation projects and will enable
transportation improvements to be made in the Independence Mall
area, thereby increasing access to the historic area of the
city.
Mr. Chairman, the plans for both the Gateway Visitors'
Center and the Independence Gateway Intermodal Transportation
Center preserve history while at the same improving access and
creating a new entrance to the park. H.R. 4109 is imperative to
the renovation of the park included in the National Park's
General Management Plan. It is extremely important for me and
for Philadelphia to serve as a travel and tourism gateway for
tourists worldwide, and for those who visit the historical area
and experience its significance in the development of this
great nation.
The Gateway Visitors' Center will serve as the region's
principal point of orientation by providing a range of
exceptional services and programs, attracting visitors to the
resources offered in and beyond the park. Independence National
Historic Park houses two of our nation's most prized objects:
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. I believe that H.R.
4109 is vital to the preservation of these treasured artifacts
that represent the ideas upon which our nation was founded and
the struggle for freedom and democracy.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the members of the
Subcommittee for hearing us today and I hope you would move
this measure forward.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
Questions for our colleagues? The gentleman from American
Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To our good friends from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox and Mr.
Borski, you know one of the lessons I learned about
legislation: if you've got it in the bag, just shut up and let
it go. And I notice here, from the testimony from the Interior
and from the National Park Service their position is that they
support the legislation. So, gentlemen, congratulations for
your efforts in working this legislation.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Maryland for
his eloquent statement explaining a very unique situation with
this legislation. And I certainly will be interested in hearing
from our friends in the National Park Service why--the
difficulty in endorsing what our good friend from Maryland is
proposing and so I want to thank our friends, our colleagues,
for their testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that
most of my people live in and around Knoxville, but I have the
privilege of representing the great Smoky Mountains National
Park, or a large portion of it, and that is by far the most
heavily visited national park and it has approximately 10
million visitors, but at 5 million visitors a year, your
Independence National Historic Park there is also one of the
most heavily visited, because even some of our great parks in
the West only have 2 or 3 million visitors a year. And so I
think it sounds like you're talking about a good project and I
certainly will support it.
And I want to say to Mr. Bartlett that I strongly support
your legislation. I know you're going to have some opposition,
but I think the only thing--I wish you were making it mandatory
instead of voluntary, because the Park Service is opposed to it
and it's voluntary, then probably they're not going to do it
anyway. But, you know, I read not long ago that over 30 percent
of the land in this country's owned by the Federal Government;
that another 20 percent is owned by State and local governments
and quasi-governmental agencies. And that's been growing by
leaps and bounds over the last 25 or 30 years. And I'll tell
you, if we don't start recognizing that private property is in
danger almost in this country and we're putting restrictions on
private property that's left in the hands of citizens.
But to put more property onto the private tax rolls, I
think, is a great thing. But I can tell you that it's hard to
find a Federal agency that's willing to part with even one acre
of land. They just want to keep adding on.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Duncan, thank you very much for your
comments. We feel that if this legislation becomes law, that
many of the parks, when they look at lands which they have
acquired simply to protect the park that are not a part of the
park, they're simply there as a part of the viewscape, when
they realize that they could sell those properties, retaining
appropriate easements so that the parks are protected just as
well as if they owned the land and that they can have the money
realized from that sale for developing the park, we think that
there will be a lot of the local parks that will be looking at
the lands that are not a part of the park that they have
acquired only to protect the park. And, by the way, that they
probably would not have acquired that way except that the
Congress gave them money that could only be used for purchase
of the land.
We feel that they are going to exercise their good judgment
and they're going to move a lot of this land back to the
private sector where they will be on the tax rolls where
someone else will maintain the land and it can be maintained
exactly as the Park Service wants it maintained because they
will have total control through easements and that sort of
protection. So that the parks will be at least as well
protected with this mechanism and they will get money for
improving the local parks and the lands will go back on the tax
rolls and someone else will be maintaining them.
So it's a win-win situation for everybody. Thank you very
much for your support.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I certainly agree with you. And I support
the legislation and I hope you're right. And maybe with the
incentive that they will receive--that they will get to keep
the--are they going to keep all of the money or a part of the
money or what----
Mr. Bartlett. The proposal in our legislation is that the
local park would have all of the revenues generated from that
to improve the local park. Otherwise, if that money goes into a
big black hole in Washington, there's going to be little
incentive for the local park to dispose of this land, keeping
an appropriate scenic easement.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I think it's good legislation and I hope
we can get it through.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from--we'll recognize you on your
own time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm sorry. OK. I just wanted to ask Mr.
Bartlett. I think the problem here is--as you well know, that
you've probably gotten a copy of the testimony of the National
Park Service--and as along the line of what our friend from
Tennessee was asking you, rather than giving the discretionary
authority to the Secretary of the Interior to sell the lands,
why don't we just mandate by legislation, say, just take it out
of the authority of the National Park Service? And do what
Congress would mandate what to do with those lands? And I'm
just adding that as a suggestion to the gentleman, rather than
giving discretionary authority to the Secretary, why don't we
just by legislation mandate that these lands--if the National
Park Service is no longer using them--just say, by Congress,
specify what you want to do with it? Yes.
Mr. Bartlett. ``Using'' is an interesting word because the
lands were acquired to protect the viewscape. So that when you
look out from Gettysburg, you don't see a shopping mall. They
want to see farms; what was there when the battle occurred.
Now, around Gettysburg, they have, in fact, acquired many of
these farms through scenic easement. They're protecting the
viewscape of the park through scenic easement.
But in many places, the Congress has not given them that
flexibility. We have given them money that could be used only
for purchasing land. Had we given them the money and we could
have told them, purchase lands and improve the park and you use
the money as you see fit, they would have certainly purchased
scenic easements on the land and used the additional moneys for
improving the parks. The Park Service is now very short of
money for maintaining and improving the parks. This will
provide a source of revenue for them.
It needs to be protected. We hope that we have drawn the
legislation very narrowly so that the essence of the park is
not an issue of this legislation. You know, nobody wants to
sell off the Liberty Bell or build strip malls in Yosemite.
It's only lands that were acquired to protect the parks. And I
think the Park Service has misunderstood the legislation. But
it's certainly a win-win situation for the Park Service. They
get to keep the increased revenues and we believe they have
misinterpreted the legislation.
And if it needs clarification, we would elicit their help
in clarifying the language so that it cannot be misunderstood.
Because our intent is certainly a noble intent.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I would like to react to the
gentleman's comments. I'm trying, just for purposes of
clarification, if the gentleman has property identified, any of
those pieces of land which the proposed legislation addresses,
and that, given the proper authority in terms of what the
Congress wants done with those lands. Because my fear is that
the Park Service is not going to--they're going to fight us
tooth and nail unless Congress has land so-and-so tract
whatever it is that my friend from Maryland wants to dispose
of, then we'll do it accordingly, by law, rather than giving
that discretionary authority to the Secretary or to the
National Park Service to do what your proposed legislation
intends to. I'm just suggesting that to the gentleman.
Mr. Hansen. We would be very happy to work with the
Committee to accomplish that goal.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Appreciate the comments from our colleagues.
You're welcome to join us on the dais if you're so inclined. I
know you're all busy, but we'd be happy to have you with us.
Thank you very much.
Our next panel--our next one panelist will be Destry
Jarvis, Assistant Director of External Affairs of the National
Park Service.
Mr. Jarvis, you take the middle seat there. We appreciate
it. And Mr. Jarvis will be referring to all four of these
bills, briefly, we hope.
STATEMENT OF DESTRY JARVIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY SUZANNE
LEWIS, SUPERINTENDENT, CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to be here today. If I may, I'd like to introduce to the
Committee three park superintendents who have me this morning.
Mr. Hansen. By all means.
Mr. Jarvis. Suzanne Lewis, superintendent of Chattahoochee
River National Recreation Area; John Donahue, superintendent of
George Washington Birthplace National Monument; and Martha
Aikens, the superintendent of Independence National Historical
Park.
Mr. Hansen. Do you want them to join you? Why don't you
have the superintendents come up?
Mr. Jarvis. If it's OK with you, Mr. Chairman, I would love
to have them here with me.
Mr. Hansen. And if we have questions for the
superintendents, we've got them right by a mike. Appreciate
them being with us today.
Mr. Jarvis. Shall I proceed in the order that you've
presented the bills?
Mr. Hansen. However you want to do it, Mr. Jarvis. We'll
listen to you, sir.
Mr. Jarvis. I will begin with H.R. 4141, the bill to amend
the authority establishing the Chattahoochee River National
Recreation Area. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the
Department cannot support the bill as it is presently written.
However, we well recognize and in fact have been working
vigorously, Superintendent Lewis and her staff, to pursue the
need for enhanced boundary authority in order to carry out the
purpose of the 1978 Act that established the national
recreation area and the 1984 amendment that amended the
boundary.
The problem here is that the counties in the northern
portion of this NRA, the four northern counties--Cobb, Forsyth,
Fulton, and Gwinnett--have been growing much faster than the
national average and much faster than the Park Service's
ability to cope with the notion, established in the 1978 Act
and the 1984 amendment that we should protect the corridor
along this 48-mile stretch of the river. In order for us to
proceed, we recognize that the authority and the boundary drawn
in those previous laws is insufficient and that we do need
boundary legislation.
The character of use has changed in recent years, as well.
When the NRA was established, the thought was this is primarily
a river-based, a water-based, recreation area. Most of the use
would be concentrated in floating the river. In point of fact,
as the Speaker noted and others, the superintendent would be
happy to attest, most of the use now is land-based. People are
coming to recreate, to picnic, to walk along the river banks,
and the present boundary does not allow us to do that
adequately. What is being pursued by the Park Service and the
local area and the many political and private citizens in the
area is a joint effort to protect this landscape, again, as the
Speaker indicated.
But let me come to the point of our concern with the bill
as written, and that is that it includes two provisions, the
so-called opt-out provision and the willing seller provision,
that are, essentially, worse than existing law. We have pursued
land acquisition and the management of this park for the last
20 years with condemnation authority, but have never used it.
It hasn't been necessary, up to this time. In general, the Park
Service regards condemnation authority as a stand-by authority
only to be used in the most severe instance of immediate threat
to the integrity of the park. That has not happened at
Chattahoochee River and I don't anticipate it happening,
however we believe that having the authority in those emergency
situations is essential to assure that we can do what Congress
mandates in the establishment and management of these areas.
The same is true with the willing seller provision. We believe
that having the authority, even when we don't use it, is
important.
We fear that if the opt-out provision is included, given
the rapidity of growth and the plethora of developers, that
developers may even offer landowners a financial incentive to
opt out, not even buying their property, but simply paying them
to opt out. That may be perceived as an idle fear, but I think
it's a real one that could occur and we want to have the
opportunity to present this vision to the local people through
public process and let them consider all their options on an
equal basis.
We are not proposing that we will go in willy nilly and
condemn land. That hasn't happened and I assure you it wouldn't
happen. But with these provisions, it ties the hands of the
Park Service to achieve the vision that I think was
contemplated both by the Speaker and by the original
legislation in 1978.
We would also like--there is a provision in the bill that
suggest that a GMP be prepared on the additions. We would like
for that provision to cover the entire NRA and do a new general
management plan for the entire NRA, not just for the addition.
Because of this change in use pattern, because of the change in
land use around us, we think a new GMP for the entire park, if
this legislation is enacted, is warranted.
And that concludes my remarks on the Chattahoochee River.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Jarvis. If I may turn to H.R. 3981, that adds the--or
proposes to protect the Ferry Farm of George Washington's
boyhood home as a boundary modification to George Washington's
birthplace. The bill would authorize us to add this immediately
to the boundary. We believe that, consistent with legislation
that is pending before this Committee that has passed the
Senate and the chairman's substitute to Title III of H.R. 1693,
having to do with the new area study process, we believe that
we should do a special resources study of this site before it
is added or before it is considered by Congress for addition to
the National Park system. We have done a preliminary
determination of eligibility for nomination as a national
historic landmark and I believe I can say that we believe the
property to be nationally significant. We have not done a
study, though, to determine whether it is feasible and suitable
for management by the National Park Service.
The bill authorizes us to acquire an easement over the
property in a cooperative effort with the Kenmore Association
and we believe that is a worthy thing to do. The property is
under some threat. The property was, at one point, about to
become a Wal-Mart store site and, through local initiative, the
county and the State and the city of Fredericksburg, and many
private citizens encouraged the Wal-Mart Corporation to move to
another location in the area, which they have done and which, I
think, from their point of view is probably a better site for a
store. It also enables the Kenmore Association to manage this
site appropriately and protect it.
We think a partnership is warranted. We'd like to do the
study before we decide how much management, if any, the Park
Service undertakes in the future. And we believe that it merits
the attention of this Committee in this way.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Jarvis. If I may turn to H.R. 4109, to authorize the
Gateway Visitors' Center at Independence National Historical
Park and say that we certainly support this legislation. It may
be unclear to the Committee exactly why this legislation is
needed, since we don't normally seek authorization of a
visitors' center within a unit of the Park System. This one is
truly different in that the partnership with the Gateway
Visitors' Center Corporation is what is needing the
authorization.
This corporation will engage in activities in this facility
that would not normally be part of a Park Service operation.
But because the general management plan for Independence saw a
role for the Park Service in the region and in the city, not
just in the boundaries of the historical park, we believe the
partnership with the corporation is warranted and this
legislation is necessary. The corporation and its operating
entities within the visitors' center will be able to conduct a
range of revenue-producing activities associated with the
building and putting those revenues back into operation and
maintenance of the building. Revenue-producing things that, for
example, they might sell tickets to Philadelphia Phillies'
baseball games or to other cultural events in the city outside
the park and take proceeds from those ticket sales and put them
into operation of the building. When the building is
constructed, they will transfer title to it to the Park Service
and we will share in the operating cost of the building to the
extent that we would have costs in operating a visitors' center
if we were the sole occupant.
I think it's important to point out, it amply illustrates
the point of partnership. The Phase I of the implementation of
this plan is expected to cost $65.6 million. The visitors'
center itself is a $30 million project of which $6 million is
for an endowment for its operation and maintenance expenses.
All of that money is in hand or firmly committed from private
sources. All of that $30 million. Of the $65.6 million, only
$3.5 million will be a Federal responsibility. And that was
requested in the Federal--in the President's budget and is in
both the House and Senate reported Appropriations bills for
Fiscal Year 1999. So, essentially, with very little Federal
commitment of resources, this new visitors' center to serve
both the 3 million visitors to the park and all of the other
visitors who will come to Philadelphia and the region around it
will be accommodated in this great new facility.
Another concern that has been raised is: You have a
visitors' center. You know, what's wrong with it? Well that
visitors' center was constructed nearly 30 years ago when
Interstate 95 was viewed as the major access to the downtown
part of the city and there was an exit ramp that was being
contemplated that would lead right to the parking garage and
the new visitors' center. After the visitors' center was under
construction, the ramp off of 95 was canceled. So that that is
not the way that two-thirds of the visitors to this park access
it. It's isolated from two-thirds of the visitor base. Most
people go directly to Independence Hall or the Liberty Bell. We
believe a new visitor center is essential to the efficient and
effective oper-
ation and this language--this authority is essential to our
purposes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Jarvis. And if I may turn now to the final bill, H.R.
4158. The Department strongly opposes enactment of this
legislation, Mr. Chairman, and believes that we have in
existing law sufficient authority to engage in the leasing or
sale of properties within boundaries of units of the National
Park System. In addition, there is language in Title VIII of
your substitute to S. 1693 that expands our leasing authority,
which we also support.
What's objectionable about the current piece of legislation
is that it goes beyond what's necessary or appropriate, both in
its findings and in its actual authority that would be granted
to the Park Service. Let me illustrate. There are 38 national
historical parks, units of the National Park System, that would
be covered by the bill as it is written. Of those 38, only 11
have private rights retained within them--called use-in-
occupancy agreements. Of those 11 parks, there are 111 such
retained use-in-occupancy rights. Of that 111, 75 are on the
C&O Canal National Historical Park. Of those 75, 73 are in
Washington County, Maryland. Of those, virtually all are
properties that are within the boundary, with--more than within
the viewshed; many of them lie between the Canal and the
Potomac River.
Within the 50-year flood plain, they were seriously damaged
by the 1996 floods. Many of these are house trailers. Some of
them are cabins. All of them, virtually, received serious
damage.
As they have been acquired over the last 20 years, and
others like them--there were some 300, originally--we have been
systematically removing them because they are incompatible with
the purpose of this national historical park. And we have
removed some in recent years as those use-in-occupancy terms
expire. All of the remaining 75 use-in-occupancy term agreement
will expire by 2001.
One of those properties has been determined to be an
historic structure and it will be retained. It currently is
under a hardship agreement and, as long as that individual
resides there, that individual will get an extension of that
use-in-occupancy agreement. But in the other cases, we intend
to remove those structures because they are incompatible with
the purpose of this national historical park.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Jarvis. I believe that is sufficient and I'd be happy
to answer questions.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Jarvis. We're honored to have
the park superintendents with us at this time. Do you have any
comment you'd like to make on any of these issues?
Ms. Lewis. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
might have. I think that the Chattahoochee River National
Recreation Area is an extremely important unit of the National
Park System and that this bill provides language to set us on a
course to continue that effort that the Speaker addressed this
morning, with the exception of the two items that we have
concern with.
Mr. Hansen. Well, I hope it can be resolved. You folks are
on the front line. I like to stumble into your parks
occasionally, see what you're doing. I concur on these national
recreation areas. I have one in my district called Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area. It does get a little attention, I've
noticed.
Questions for the panel? The gentleman from American Samoa.
Feel free to talk to your park superintendents, though.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
wanted to thank Mr. Jarvis again for his presence and the
fellow superintendents for their appearance this morning.
I just wanted to know if the proposal under the provisions
of H.R. 4141 have set any--is this an unprecedented proposal to
consider the opt-out provisions as well as the willing seller
concept or--why is the National Park Service having problems
with this? Is this the first time that such a proposal is
giving this out for legislation? Or----
Mr. Jarvis. It would be the first opt-out provision that
we've ever had to deal with. There are other parks that have
operated under willing seller only restrictions and they tend
to be slower to come on-line, remain fractured and fragmented
in ways that sometimes prove incompatible with public use,
particular where a linear corridor is involved. It takes only
one small blockage to disrupt the linear movement of visitor
use.
Superintendent Lewis, would you like to say anything about
the opt-out clause?
Ms. Lewis. I think being a local manager on hand, having
just 2 years there and watching the tremendous growth that has
occurred, we also share a concern that having to have private
landowners currently make a decision that affects the long-term
status of their land in less than 12 months is of concern to
us. In an urban area, such as the Atlanta region, landownership
is changing hands very rapidly in that area and, again, asking
people to make such a short-term decision is problematic.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And do you have a recommendation to cure
this problem with an opt-out provision, as proposed in the
bill, or do you just suggest that we don't need it or what do
you suggest to improve it?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I think that----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is there a better option than opt out as
well as willing seller?
Mr. Jarvis. Certainly, simply deleting the opt-out
provision would be what we would recommend. I think the
chairman's opening remarks indicate a way to go as well. There
is a witness later in the hearing who will present a proposed
map, a partner that we've been working with in the local area.
We would be very eager to get out to the public to discuss this
at the earliest opportunity. Superintendent Lewis is committed
to that. We want people to know what's being proposed. We want
them to understand what their opportunities are. And we don't
want them to lock themselves into a decision immediately that
they might regret later on.
Because we're not going to exercise condemnation authority
willy nilly. This is going to be, for all intents and purposes,
a willing seller acquisition program. But we don't want them to
opt out before they may later decide that their best course of
action is to be included. There is no opt in provision.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. The bill also provides an
authorization of $25 million. As I expressed an earlier concern
about providing the money first and we haven't even authorized
the--we, without even an authorizing legislation--and this
seems to be the problem also and utilizing the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. What is the National Park Service position
on this?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, Congress appropriates our funding. We
have a process of looking at the land acquisition needs of the
Park Service and submitting a priority list each year. The
Congress regularly adjusts that to its liking and would do so
on into the future and that is part of the way our government
operates. We don't object to those kinds of things happening.
We know that's part of the process.
We do have our own priorities. We have units of the
National Park System that have been authorized for many, many
years that still have private lands that occasionally come up
for sale and we'd like to buy them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. With a $25 million authorization, where
does the priority lines of the Chattahoochee River? And maybe
the superintendent can share what her understanding is? How
does it compare with the priorities within the whole National
Park System as far the authorization for funding?
Ms. Lewis. At the Chattahoochee River, a two-pronged
strategy in that the existing boundary of 6,800 acres, of which
the Park Service has acquired around 4,500. So the $25 million
proposed appropriation is well targeted to complete the
original acquisition to 6,800 acres. This legislation would
allow us to once again pursue the Speaker's vision and that is
to provide linear corridors in areas where we currently don't
have authorized venues.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I understand, Madam Superintendent. I
know you are a willing supporter and I can fully appreciate
that. But what I want to know from Mr. Jarvis is where does
this fall in the line of priorities within the whole National
Park System? In other words, all right, the Speaker needs $25
million for Chattahoochee. How does this compare to hundreds of
other parks and how do you rate the priority within the Park
Service of this $25 million authorization that has been
requested of us?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, sir, the only time the Park Service
prioritizes land acquisition is in the President's annual
appropriation request, in the budget.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Jarvis. And it was not in--this project was not in our
Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation request for land acquisition.
That does not mean that it isn't significant and that it
wouldn't show up in future years. It's an important
acquisition. But it's come on-line here since the President
submitted his budget and the Congress, as I say, always makes
its priority adjustments for us.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On H.R. 3981, you suggest that we need to
have a study. How long do you think it will take to complete
this study if the National Park Service were to be authorized
to do the study?
Mr. Jarvis. If we are authorized to do the study, we
believe we can do it within available funds for special
resource studies. We would propose to begin it in Fiscal Year
1999 and have it be completed in Fiscal Year 2000. Probably
about a 14 to 16 month process. And provide the report to the
Committee when it's completed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can this be done internally without
authorization for a study?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we've testified on the chairman's
provisions of his substitute to S. 1693 both here and in the
Senate and we believe that special resource studies should be
authorized by the Congress and we'd like to have that
authorization before we proceed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. On the bill, the H.R. 4109, you
support the proposal. How does this contrast with the fiasco
and the mess that we're in in Gettysburg National Park?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, if I might--before I answer that, I'd
like to ask Superintendent Aikens to describe briefly to you
the general management plan and what it calls for at
Independence and then I will contrast where we are with
Gettysburg.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, again, I'm not trying to cut the
gentlelady off. I just want to say to Mr. Jarvis: Are we
contradicting ourselves by way of policy?
Mr. Jarvis. Not at all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I mean the Secretary's initiative, the
policy of doing this thing on the strength of his own
authority, and now we come here to say, let's do it
legislatively. Is there a difference here?
Mr. Jarvis. Not at all, sir. In the case of Gettysburg,
this is a visitors' center that solely serves Park purposes, at
Gettysburg. It was called for in the general management plan
for Gettysburg. We've identified very high priority----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So it's not going to be a circus? It's
not going a circus or a theme park or popcorn at all?
Mr. Jarvis. It's not going to serve a theme park--it's not
going to serve non-Park purposes. In the case of Independence,
we have a truly unique situation that is beyond the existing
authority of the Park Service to pursue, so we need
authorization to engage in this kind of partnership with the
Gateway Visitors' Center Corporation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One more question, Mr. Chairman, if I
may. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to prolong here. On H.R. 4158, as
we had discussed it earlier from the gentleman from Maryland,
Congressman Bartlett, you say that the National Park Service
does not recognize surplus land. What if a bill were to be
amended or adjusted to suggest that whatever parcels of land
that need to be gotten out of the authority of the National
Park Service, would you have any objections to that?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. Remember that Congress draws our
boundaries.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Right.
Mr. Jarvis. And authorizes us to acquire private lands
inside those boundaries. There are very few instances where we
are given open-ended land acquisition authority to reach out
cross-country and buy whatever becomes available. We are told
what we can buy within our boundaries and we have bought as
money has been available.
None of that land is surplus. Those boundaries were drawn
with great forethought by the Congress. Many times--I hope most
times--based on studies done by the Park Service as to which
lands were critical to the protection of that park. And
protection is part of the purpose of the park. We don't simply
protect the Old Faithful geyser, we have a bit of Yellowstone's
ecosystem around it. And that is true of historical parks as
well. Protecting the viewshed is a major purpose of the park.
And Congress has drawn those boundaries so that we may protect
what is in those boundaries. And we do so, in most cases, by
land acquisition.
I would also say that the Park Service is not mandated to
acquire fee simple interest. We have the--in every place that
we have acquisition authority, we can acquire less than fee.
There is no place that Congress says, you will only buy fee
simple. We usually do buy fee simple, simply because more often
than not the cost of an easement is 90 percent of the value of
fee simple. And in the case of properties that are interwoven
within the primary resource, as in the case of the C&O Canal
where you have properties lying between the towpath and the
river, we cannot restore the character of that historical canal
with trailers and cabins next to the towpath or between the
towpath and the river. We have to----
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is running and I want to give the
gentleman from Maryland the opportunity to detail the concerns
that he has about the response of the Department. And so, Mr.
Chairman, I thank you. I don't mean to----
Mr. Hansen. I'd like to hear from the chairman--from the
superintendent. She had a comment on this.
Ms. Aikens. Oh, I thought you were talking about the
superintendent from Chattahoochee. My name is Martha Aikens.
I'm superintendent at Independence Park. And what I just wanted
to say is that the whole concept for the Gateway Visitors'
Center actually evolved through our GMP process, which included
a very extensive public involvement process. We had close to 20
public workshops, public meetings; we even included a televised
town meeting in which we discussed all the relevant issues
relative to how we would approach managing the park in the
future.
The regional concept for the Gateway Visitors' Center
evolved out of the whole idea of how best to look at the whole
visitor services concept for not only the park, but for the
district. So we're very proud of the Gateway Visitors' Center
concept. It has widespread public support. We involved not only
the average visitor coming through the park, but we involved
all of the communities that would be affected by the kinds of
decisions that we make in the park. So we think that it is a
very good concept and we hope that we can count on the
Committee to support us.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, if I may? I'd like to ask
Mr. Jarvis to submit the land acquisition priority listing that
you currently have at the National Park Service to be made part
of the record. I certainly would like to have the members of
the Committee to also have access to that listing. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Jarvis, on H.R. 4141, doesn't
that opt-out provision under this bill only apply to the
interim map? That's the way I read the bill.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. Yes, but once you opt out, you're out. And
if we made adjustments in the map when the permanent map is
prepared, there's no opt in provision.
Mr. Hansen. But the opt-out provision does not apply to the
permanent expansion map that your folks are going to do--what--
in the July 1, 1999?
Mr. Jarvis. But if the landowners precipitously opt out in
the meantime, then they're out.
Mr. Hansen. Between that period.
Mr. Jarvis. Or at least that's the way the bill is written
now. There's no opportunity for them to opt back in.
Mr. Hansen. I have some additional questions, but I first
recognize the member of the Committee, Mr. Kildee from Michigan
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really, I enjoyed the
testimony. Benefited from the testimony of the witnesses, but I
have no questions at this time. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Bartlett, not a member of the
Committee, is on the stand with us. We would recognize him for
5 minutes if he has questions for this panel.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much and thank you for the
courtesy of permitting us to sit here with you. Mr. Jarvis, our
bill was really not meant to apply primarily to lands within
the park. There are lands which you acquired to protect the
viewshed of the park. It was meant primarily to apply to those
lands. You kept applying it to lands within the park.
Now the C&O Canal is a unique situation. And you mentioned
the large number of structures there. Many of those structures,
by the way, you have not acquired and as far as I know you have
no intention of acquiring them. That is the Potomac Fish and
Game Club where there are a number of cabins and so forth
there.
You made one statement which I'd like some explanation of.
You've mentioned that you're tearing down these houses and so
forth along the canal because they are incompatible with the
purposes of the park. Now it's my understanding that the C&O
Canal is an historic park. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Bartlett. It is not a wilderness park?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Bartlett. Then why are you intent on returning it to
wilderness? You see, sir, when the C&O Canal was in operation,
that was as far from wilderness as it could be. Because that
was the most valuable land in Maryland, the land right along
the park. It was farmed if it was farmable. It was warehouses.
It was businesses. It was inns and so forth, because this was a
major artery for commerce. This was not a wilderness area and
what you are now trying to do is to return it to wilderness.
I would have problem if you were to require--and, by the
way, there were lots and lots of houses and businesses and
farms that were within the viewshed of the C&O Canal, because
this was the most valuable land and it was the most developed
land in Mary-
land because this was the commercial route through Maryland
until the railroad was built. So we are not, we are not
preserving this as an historic park when we tear down these
structures. Now if indeed you wanted to preserve it as an
historic park, you would require the people who owned these
structures to make them look like they would have looked when
the canal was in operation.
By the way, the local newspaper, which is not a member of
that vast right-wing conspiracy, has taken an editorial
position that these lands ought to be retained by the owners
and that the structures ought to be there and their primary
view is that this is security for the many, many people who
travel on the canal.
You know, this canal--most of the canals within the
District that I have the honor of representing in the Congress,
it is a national treasure, but, sir, it is not a wilderness
park. And I've been there. I've seen what you're doing. You're
tearing down these houses. You don't even remove the
foundation. It grows up to briars. It looks just awful. If I
would. And, you know, this is not a wilderness. We shouldn't be
attempting to return it to wilderness.
Now you'll have a witness in a few minutes who lives 70
feet above the canal. You can't even see his house from the
canal. There is no way that that could be involved with the
preservation of the essence of this park. So there's a lot here
and, sir, I would encourage you to go out there and to walk the
canal as I have done and to see what's out there. Go to the
Potomac Fish and Game Club. Go to these residences that are 70
feet above the canal. You can't even see them from the canal.
And yet you acquired these 25 years ago, essentially with a
gun to the head of the people who owned them. And now you are
forcing the people out at the end of their lease and tearing
them down. I just need an explanation of these things so that
our people can understand it.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Was that a question?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bartlett. That was a question.
Mr. Hansen. Do you want to respond, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. I have been on the
canal many, many times, on foot and on bike and in my car to
the canal. And, although I'm not familiar with the particular
property of the gentleman that you referred to that's 70 feet
above the canal cliff, I would say that you are correct that we
are not attempting to restore this to a, quote, ``wilderness,''
but it a historical park and, to the extent that there are
historical structures, we absolutely want to maintain them and
have them restored either by us or by a lessee to the
appearance of the historical period.
Most--the vast majority of the properties in question here
are house trailers or cabins that have been constructed in
modern times that cannot be made to look like historical
structures. Many of them are in the 50-year flood plain and
when the floods hit us--they did in 1996, as you all know--the
effect is devastating and a great deal of clean-up effort has
to go on after that.
I am, I guess, a bit confused about areas outside the
boundary that we may be acquiring and I'd be happy to look into
it further. I believe that we're acquiring properties inside
the boundary. And, unlike the C&O Canal where we acquire inside
the boundary--and the other examples that you gave of places
like Gettysburg and Antietam Battlefield--we are in fact
working with farmers and landowners to purchase an easement to
keep it as a farm and keep it in production because that is
what it was at the time of those important battles. And we
don't need or expect to acquire fee simple interest in those
farms. But that is not the situation along the C&O Canal, as I
understand it.
I'd be happy to pursue this further, outside of this
hearing.
Mr. Hansen. Further questions? Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman. Again, I want to thank Mr. Jarvis and our
distinguished superintendents for their presence here this
morning and look forward to working with them and hopefully we
could resolve some of the issues and problems that have been
raised concerning the proposed bills. Again, thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. We appreciate this panel.
Thank you for your consideration. And we appreciate having your
superintendents with us. It's always a privilege to have you.
Appreciate the work that you do.
Now we'll excuse you and go to the third panel. Our third
panel is Margaret Tutwiler, James Pickman, Alan Front, and
Blaine Weaver. Would they come forward, please? If we could
limit you to 5 minutes, we'd really appreciate it. If you just
have a great burning desire that you have to go a couple of
minutes more, let me know. This light system in front of you is
just like a traffic light. Green, you go. Yellow, you wind up.
And red, if you run it, well, we bang the gavel on you.
Ms. Tutwiler, we'll go to you first, please.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET DEB. TUTWILER, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, KENMORE ASSOCIATION, INC.
Ms. Tutwiler. And I'll be more than glad to accommodate
you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.
Thank you for this opportunity to be here today to testify
on behalf of the board of trustees of the Kenmore Association
in behalf of bill H.R. 3981. As Chairman--Congressman Bateman
said earlier today, Kenmore is located in historic
Fredericksburg, Virginia, which is the home of George
Washington's only sister Betty. It is one of our nation's
oldest house museums, built in 1775. The preservation of the
Kenmore house was among the first national preservation
efforts, second only to the effort to save Mount Vernon. In
1922, local Fredericksburg citizens joined in raising funds to
purchase the historic house and the grounds as a sacred trust,
thereby saving the house from destruction.
The Kenmore Association was incorporated in May 1922 and
was charged with the perpetual stewardship, maintenance, and
management of the Kenmore house. In 1926, the Kenmore Board of
Regents was created to ensure the preservation of this
property. Today, with over 100 women representing all 50
States, Great Britain, and France, the board of regents
continues to guide the Kenmore Association's activities,
educational programs, and fund-raising efforts. Furthermore,
Kenmore is governed by a 16-person board of trustees comprised
of businessmen and women from throughout the United States.
Kenmore house is open year-round and has thousands of visitors
through it every year.
In addition to the colonial artifacts found on the grounds
of Kenmore and the unparalleled early American craftsmanship in
the house itself, the Kenmore property is of considerable
historical significance. George Washington's sister Betty lived
at Kenmore with her husband Colonel Fielding Lewis. During the
American Revolution, Colonel Lewis was one of the chief
financial backers of General Washington's army.
Only a few generations later, Kenmore experienced the
ravages of the Civil War. In fact, it served as a hospital for
the Union Army.
The Kenmore house is an important part of our American
heritage because of its associations with our nations' founding
fathers, as has been pointed out earlier here this morning.
It's importance as a splendid example of colonial art and
craftsmanship and its witness to American life for more than
220 years.
In 1996, the Kenmore Association led one of the most
important preservation battles of recent years: the fight to
save George Washington's boyhood home, Ferry Farm, from
commercial development. As you know, Ferry Farm is located just
across from the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg. It's
where George Washington spent his formative years, ages roughly
6 to 20. In 1996, a commercial retail entity attempted to
purchase and develop a large portion of Ferry Farm. The Kenmore
Association stepped in and purchased the entire Ferry Farm
property in order to save the historical farm from commercial
development.
George Washington's Ferry Farm is a unique site. Ferry Farm
is the last place associated with George Washington that has
not been protected for the American people. The preservation of
George Washington's Ferry Farm is a compelling preservation
undertaking, as both the Congressmen and the Park Service have
testified to this morning.
It was the place that prepared Washington to overcome the
challenges of his life, experiences that shaped the character
that made him the most revered of our founding fathers. At
Ferry Farm, the character was formed that helped shape our
nation.
We need the National Park Service to help us protect Ferry
Farm for future generations by acquiring, as has been pointed
out, an easement ensuring that George Washington's Ferry Farm
will be protected forever. Working in conjunction with the Park
Service in a unique public-private stewardship, the Kenmore
Association, with over 70 years of preservation experience can
protect and manage this land of extraordinary importance to our
nation's heritage. The passage of the proposed legislation will
ensure Ferry Farm's safekeeping.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tutwiler may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Pickman.
STATEMENT OF JAMES PICKMAN, PRESIDENT, GATEWAY VISITOR CENTER
CORPORATION
Mr. Pickman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of H.R. 4109, the bill to authorize the
Gateway Visitor Center at Independence National Historical Park
in Philadelphia. My name is James Pickman. I am the president
of the Gateway Visitors' Center Corporation, which is a non-
profit, tax exempt organization formed to work in partnership
with the National Park Service to develop and operate the
Gateway Visitor Center.
The idea for a regional visitor center on Independence Mall
emerged from two separate tracks that came together to form the
partnership that's here before you today. As Mr. Jarvis and
Superintendent Aikens testified, the concept for a regional
visitor center emerged from the Park Service's general
management plan, which was developed over a 4-year period from
1993 to 1997, to enhance the visitor experience, to be a
catalyst for the revitalization of Independence Mall, and to
strengthen the Park Service's partnerships with the surrounding
community.
At the same time that this was going on, the Pew Charitable
Trusts, which is based in Philadelphia--it's one of the largest
philanthropies in the country--was exploring how the
Philadelphia region could take better advantage of the numerous
attractions in that region to enhance the tourism industry and
spur economic growth and job creation. One of the conclusions
that came out of that exploration was the need for a new
regional visitor center. And they thought that Independence
Mall would be a perfect location because it also adjacent to
two of the most popular attractions in the region: Independence
Hall and the Liberty Bell.
So there were these two separate processes going on that
reached similar conclusions. In 1995, the two joined forces to
test the feasibility of such a center and when that proved
affirmative, they moved forward together to try and take this
vision and turn it into a reality.
Let me briefly describe the partnership between the Park
Service and the Gateway Visitor Center Corporation. The Gateway
Visitor Center Corporation is a non-profit organization that
represents a range of the stakeholders in the region. Its board
consists of Mayor Rendell, the deputy chief of staff to
Governor Tom Ridge, a senior representative of the Pew
Charitable Trusts, and other representatives from the region.
The corporation is also in the process of adding three board
members to bring a national perspective, including historians
and preservationists.
The agreements that are being worked out now with the Park
Service--which govern the design and construction and the
operation of the center--call for a true partnership and, to
make one general comment on those agreements, it's that the
Park Service gets the right to approve of almost everything
from the design of the building to the content of the exhibits
and to any merchandise that would be sold in the gift shop.
The visitor center, as was discussed earlier, will be
located on Park Service property. It will be owned by the
National Park Service and it will the prime orientation and
information facility for the park, for the adjacent historic
district, for the city, and the region. Its purposes are to
inform, to excite, to stimulate, to educate, and set visitors
on their way, either right on the doorstep--at Independence
National Historical Park--or beyond it in the city and the
region. In addition, the visitor center is a pivotal component
of the remaking, the complete remaking, of Independence Mall.
The mall is a 3-block, 15-acre open space that was created in
the 1950's and 1960's that I believe has been a failure in its
operation. The desire to revitalize Independence Mall grew out
of the Park Service's general management plan process.
In terms of funding, the estimated cost of the visitor
center is, as was stated, $30 million, with $6 million of that
being set aside as an endowment for operations. All of that
money is fully committed or in hand and half of it is from
private philanthropies, led by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The
other half is from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
city of Philadelphia. There are no Federal dollars.
In terms of operations, which is not the subject here
today, as was stated by Mr. Jarvis, there will be a division
among the stakeholders and I can just assure you it will be
done on a basis of fairness. No one's going to be subsidizing
someone else. On the preliminary numbers that we've run, I can
assure you that any contribution of the Park Service will be
less than half of the operating costs. That we know for sure.
Let me just conclude by just mentioning why H.R. 4109 is
critical to going forward. First, as was said, it allows the
center to engage in activities that relate to things outside of
the National Park's boundaries, in effect, to be a regional
visitor center. For example, we can promote attractions in the
region, such as Valley Forge or the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Secondly, it allows the center to engage in revenue-
generating activities such as charging commissions on
reservations for hotels in the region or even renting the
facility after hours for receptions. Let me just make clear
that there will be no charge for visitors to come into the
center. That's absolutely not going to happen. And, third, it
allows the center to retain any earnings to help support its
operations.
Not only is the enactment of this legislation vital to the
realization of this vision, but the timing is also very, very
important. The funders committed $30 million for a regional
visitor center and it's very hard to go forward with any
seriousness unless we know that that type of facility is
plausible. So we urge very strongly the timely enactment of
this legislation. I thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickman may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Pickman.
Mr. Front.
STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TRUST FOR
PUBLIC LAND
Mr. Front. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My gratitude
is twofold. First, I appreciate the expeditious way that the
Subcommittee has approached this legislation, as I hope to
explain in a minute. That kind of dispatch is both necessary
and warranted in this case. And second, I am grateful for the
chance to appear be-
fore you again today, representing my organization, The Trust
For Public Land, but in a larger sense also representing a very
broad and large partnership of interests that are working
together to, as you heard Speaker make reference to earlier, to
protect a very special resource area.
I'd like to discuss the work that that partnership is doing
and why H.R. 4141 is so vitally necessary to its completion.
Before I do that, I'd like to spend just a moment sharing with
you my own and my organization's introduction 10 years ago to
the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area, which
Superintendent Lewis will at least recall the wild stories.
To do that I ask you to imagine the intense suburban
subdivision development on the border of the Atlanta city
limits. And place into that picture a small, very rustic farm,
with a hand-hewn cabin, no electricity, a wood stove for heat,
in which resides to this day a gentleman, a true gentleman
named Daisy Hyde, who is advancing in years and was even 10
years ago. I believe that he is approaching, if he hasn't past,
his 90th birthday.
Mr. Hyde found himself with a critical in-holding in the
existing boundary of the Chattahoochee National Recreation
Area. He also found himself facing substantial tax obligations
that led him to decide to sell his property to the Park Service
with a provision that would allow him to maintain his residence
and maintain the farming lifestyle that he had conducted there
for many of those 80-some odd years. The Trust For Public Land
worked with Mr. Hyde to arrange just such a transaction and he
paid off his obligations. Today I believe that he is the only
mule farmer in Atlanta, or at least he is the dean of the
Atlanta mule farming community.
We knew very little about the Chattahoochee at that time.
We have since learned very emphatically that this area is
important; that Mr. Hyde's river is in fact probably the most
complex and critical environmental issue facing Atlantans.
Again, you heard the Speaker talk about its importance in
manifold ways. It is critically important for park use and
visitor demand. It's critically important for water quality for
the Atlanta community, and, in fact, for a swath of the south
that stretches down to Alabama and Florida. And it's important
for economic development because this is the lifeblood of that
region.
We have taken a straw poll. Years ago we took a straw poll
in Atlanta and asked various communities--the social justice
community, civic leaders, the philanthropic community, the
business community--what's the most important thing we could
work on together? And the unanimous answer was the
Chattahoochee River. Out of those discussions grew this
partnership which is leviathan in size and Herculean in
strength and which, I believe, is providing assistance and
prepared to provide assistance to the Park Service in truly
unprecedented ways.
Twenty years ago, as Superintendent Lewis mentioned, this
Committee created the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area.
And in that creation, established a series of 12 or so units
along the 48-mile stretch of the river. The pearls that
currently don't have a necklace threading them together, but a
number of very important areas along the river. Time has
virtually stood still if you visit the Hyde farm, but the
Atlanta real estate market moves on a very different clock. So
many of the areas within that 6,800-acre boundary have already
been developed by private landowners who exercised their
private property rights and did not wait for Park Service
acquisition.
As a result, inside the boundary are now some lands that
are inappropriate for Park Service consideration. At the same
time, there are park-quality lands that run along the river and
in fact create that necklace between the pearls, lands that the
Park Service currently has no ability to reach out and work on,
but are within the designated area of a Federal or national
interest, but the Park Service cannot address. And, as the Park
Service has recognized that and the partnership has recognized
that, they've also recognized that there is an attendant water
quality benefit that the Park Service can help to contribute to
along with the benefits that can be derived from creating a
green-line park along the river, a park that will actually
remedy some of the truncated recreational experiences that
visitors face when they go to these units, but can't go any
further.
The Speaker alluded to the partnership and what it was
doing. I would just repeat that Governor Zel Miller and the
State of Georgia have committed $15 million of their money to
help stretch the capacity of the Park Service and create--not
only a greenway, but also to establish water quality
protections for the citizens of Atlanta and people well beyond.
That private landowners have been extremely willing to
participate in this program, but also, like those private
landowners who have already developed their property, they will
not wait indefinitely. And the private philanthropic community
already has produced commitments of $25 million to support this
effort. Twenty-five million dollars that is contingent on
Federal action on the greenway.
And so, both because of the rapidity of real estate
turnover and because of the availability of this private and
State largess which we cannot count on unless the Federal
Government matches the commitment that's being made by non-
Federal partners, we are very hopeful that the Committee will
act expeditiously on H.R. 4141 and that we'll be able to
realize this vision and cut the ribbon the Chattahoochee real
soon.
As a last note, there has been a good deal of discussion
about the map for the Chattahoochee River and I have brought a
map with me that, not intending to tease this panel, is not
quite ready for submittal into the record. But I wanted at
least to demonstrate that there really was a map out there
somewhere. It's being tuned up right now and, in a matter of
days, we do plan on submitting this as a map that would be
referenced by the bill and I believe that this is an
outstanding way to resolve what I've heard to be one major
controversy in this legislation.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Front. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Front may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Duncan. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Front, for your
testimony.
Before we go to Mr. Weaver, I understand that Ms. Tutwiler
needs to leave, and, Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any
questions or comments for Ms. Tutwiler?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, I don't have any questions. I just
want to compliment her presence here, Mr. Chairman. It
certainly has been my privilege and honor to work with Ms.
Tutwiler and her tremendous contributions to our nation
certainly as a high official with our State Department in the
years that she served with former Secretary Jim Baker. We're
very, very honored to have her be here.
And I'm sure that she's heard what the National Park
Service has expressed their concerns about the need of a
feasibility study. My only hope is that this feasibility study
doesn't end up another 5 years and still the project is not
completed. But I sincerely hope that maybe, Ms. Tutwiler, we
can work together with this legislation and see if the National
Park Service could help us expedite what is needed to make sure
that the feasibility study can be implemented and doing so in a
very short order.
Again, thank you very much for your coming here, Ms.
Tutwiler.
Ms. Tutwiler. Thank you very much. And thank you for your
comments and letting me return to a meeting in the private
sector that is very important. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. Go back and tell your other
trustees that I said you did a great job and you represent them
well.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Tutwiler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pickman. Mr. Chairman, can I ask your indulgence?
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Pickman. There's a board meeting of the Gateway Visitor
Center Corporation in Philadelphia, and if I can catch a 12
train, that would be terrific.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pickman. But if there are questions that you need to
keep me----
Mr. Duncan. No, no, no, that's--no, I understand. I
understand.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Pickman, as I said before to our
colleagues when they proposed the bill: If it's in the bag,
shut up and move on. And so, I think you're more than happy to
leave us. Be that as it may. But we appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Pickman. You know, I asked counsel before I got up here
whether I should abbreviate my abbreviated statement and he
said, no, go ahead and give it, so I was listening to you, sir.
And I thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much for being with us and, Mr.
Weaver, you can go ahead and begin your testimony at this time.
STATEMENT OF BLAINE WEAVER, RETIRED FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
EXECUTIVE
Mr. Weaver. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members. Thank you for allowing me to make a presentation
today, July 16, 1998. My name is D. Blaine Weaver and I reside
in Washington County, Maryland, in the Sixth Congressional
District, represented by Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett.
Today I am here to advocate support for House Bill number
4158. Why am I doing this? Because I have 5 grandchildren, ages
6 to 10 years old, who just completed a week of fishing and
water skiing at our summer home in Washington County, Maryland,
along the C&O National Historic Park. Since they enjoy these
activities very much, their question to me and mine to you is:
Why won't we be able to use this property after the year 2000?
Our property tract number 30-109 is located along the
Potomac River, above dam number 4 where there is no canal and
all the properties in this area are high above the river,
approximately 60 to 75 feet. It's never been used by the public
or it's never been used by the Park Service because this
property, again, is high above the river and the towpath
adjoins immediately to the river.
Many of the adjacent lessees--or the right-to-use, as the
Park Service likes to call it--and I feel that the Department
of the Interior employees in the early to mid-1970's used heavy
duress tactics, always with the threat of condemnation, to
allow the Federal Government to obtain these properties. Our
only option was to sell and have the use or retain the use and
the property condemned. In our case, we were not really paid a
fair market price for the property and the 25-year lease fee
was deducted along with the salvage fee at the time of the
sale, leaving the net proceeds to us. Any one knowing the
future value of money knows the Federal Government received a
real bargain.
Also, 23 years ago, in this same time period, I was misled
by the statements issued by the Park Service acquisition
officer that they would procure all adjoining property along
the entire 184-mile length of the canal and it would become the
C&O Canal National Historic Park. This did not occur. I can
cite many instances where the properties were not procured or
very favorable conditions were granted. And this occurred all
along the canal from Georgetown to Cumberland, Maryland.
I'll cite a few of these instances. Starting in Georgetown,
there is Water Street, between the restored C&O Canal and the
Potomac River with many restored offices, condos, restaurants,
and businesses.
In our immediate area, above dam number 4, Jack Berkson
deeded 17 feet along the Potomac River, which was actually the
towpath, of his 90 acres to the government. He reserved the
right to cross the towpath, place docks for 300 feet along the
river during the summer months for a period of 99 years. Mr.
Berkson is currently developing 90 acres in lot sites for
residential housing.
Also above dam No. 4, Mr. Perini did not give up any of his
land and now has a very beautiful residence immediately above
the river and towpath. In addition, the property was subdivided
into residential lots.
Also above dam No. 4, as we heard earlier from Congressman
Bartlett, the Potomac Fish and Game Club, which has 550
members, has numerous cabins and trailers situated between the
canal and the Potomac River.
The National Park Service has changed the original
boundaries of the C&O Canal by acquiring our properties, which
were not part of the original C&O Canal.
Also the National Park Service declared that they were
going to turn the properties back to nature, as the lessees--or
the right-to-use--expired. However, in our immediate area, the
foundations and various types of junk remain on these
properties. Also, when the canal was in operation, the property
owners along the river interacted with the canal workers. We
have kept this tradition alive for people using the towpath by
providing assistance, direction, and emergency help when
needed. Last week, a hiker from the Netherlands lost his
backpack with the credit cards and money and he asked to use
the cell phone to call his bank in the Netherlands. I referred
him to a regular phone approximately a mile away.
Apparently, the National Park Service will issue blinders
to all the bicyclists and hikers so that they do not see all
the non-nature properties still along the C&O Canal and the
towpath. Lo and behold, if they look across the Potomac River
to the West Virginia landscape, they will see all kinds of non-
nature property and activity, which includes new private boat
ramps, boat docks, all types of housing from mobile homes to
high-priced residential homes. I wonder if the National Park
Service is planning also to turn the West Virginia side of the
Potomac River back to nature?
This property has been in our family 41 years. Tract number
38-109. I request your assistance in obtaining a 99-year lease
extension, right-of-use-and-occupancy, or the opportunity to
buy back the land from the government. All the other lessees
that I've spoken to want the same opportunity to do the same
thing with their properties that was acquired by the Park
Service back in the mid-1970's.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify at this
hearing and we sincerely seek your assistance and the
Subcommittee's assistance in supporting H.R. 4158. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weaver may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Weaver, thank you very much. I noticed in
one of the newspaper articles that a representative of the
Sierra Club referred to this proposal as a radical right-wing
proposal. Are you a radical right-wing extremist of some type?
Mr. Weaver. No, sir. I've worked hard all my life. I
started out working when I was 13 years old at $3.50 a week. I
have acquired my assets and owe no money at this time and have
no radical, right-wing leanings whatsoever. I do listen to Rush
Limbaugh, so maybe that might affect me a little bit, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I can tell you that more and more people
across the country are beginning to realize that the Sierra
Club, which used to be a moderate, mainstream organization, has
gone very radically to the left and is very quickly losing much
of the good reputation that it once had.
We have a vote going on and so we're going to have to stop
this hearing at this time, but I do want to say that we very
much appreciate your being here today and the sincerity with
which you've testified and you have a great Congressman in
Congressman Bartlett, who is attempting to help you in every
way that he possibly can. And we'll go ahead and stop the
hearing at this time because of the vote we have, but thank you
very much for being here. And that will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Margaret Deb. Tutwiler, Member of the Board of Trustees,
Kenmore Association, Inc.
Mr. Chairman thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
Committee today and testify on behalf of H.R. 3981. I am pleased to be
here representing the Board of Trustees of the Kenmore Association.
Kenmore, located in historic Fredericksburg, Virginia, is the home
of George Washington's only sister, Betty. It is one of the nation's
oldest house museums--built in 1775. The preservation of the Kenmore
house was among the first national preservation efforts, second only to
the effort to save Mount Vernon. In 1922, local Fredericksburg citizens
joined in raising funds to purchase the historic house and grounds as a
``sacred trust,'' thereby saving the house from destruction.
The Kenmore Association, Inc. was incorporated in May 1922 and was
charged with the perpetual stewardship, maintenance and management of
the Kenmore house. In 1926, the Kenmore Board of Regents was created to
ensure the preservation of the property. Today, with over one hundred
women representing all fifty states, Great Britain and France, they
continue to guide the Kenmore Association's activities, educational
programs, and fund-raising efforts. Kenmore is governed by a sixteen-
member Board of Trustees comprised of businessmen and women from
throughout the United States. Kenmore is open year round as a house
museum and has over twenty-five thousand visitors annually.
In addition to the colonial artifacts found on the grounds and the
unparalleled craftsmanship in the house itself, the Kenmore property is
of considerable historical significance. George Washington's sister,
Betty, lived at Kenmore with her husband Colonel Fielding Lewis. During
the American Revolution, Colonel Lewis was one of the chief financial
backers of General Washington's army.
Only a few generations later, Kenmore experienced the ravages of
the Civil War. It served as a hospital for the Union Army.
The Kenmore house is an important part of our American heritage
because of its association with our nation's Founding Fathers, its
importance as a splendid example of colonial art and craftsmanship, and
its witness to American life for more than two hundred twenty years.
In 1996, the Kenmore Association led one of the most important
preservation battles of recent years--the fight to save George
Washington's Ferry Farm from commercial development.
Ferry Farm, located just across the Rappahannock River from
Fredericksburg, is where George Washington spent his formative years--
roughly ages six to twenty. In 1996 a commercial retail entity
attempted to purchase and develop a large portion of Ferry Farm. The
Kenmore Association stepped in and purchased the entire Ferry Farm
property in order to save the historical farm from commercial
development.
George Washington's Ferry Farm is a unique site. Ferry Farm is the
last place associated with George Washington that has not been
protected for the American people. The preservation of George
Washington's Ferry Farm is a compelling preservation undertaking.
Every American knows the fabled stories associated with this
historic place. For instance, Ferry Farm is where the legendary story
of the cherry tree took place. The young Washington's words--``I cannot
tell a lie''--are fixed in our national memory. Ferry Farm is more than
the setting for fables. It was the place that prepared Washington to
overcome the challenges of his life--experiences that shaped the
character that made him the most revered of our Founding Fathers. At
Ferry Farm the character was formed that helped shape our nation.
We need the National Park Service to help us protect Ferry Farm for
future generations by acquiring an easement--ensuring that George
Washington's Ferry Farm will be protected forever.
Working in conjunction with the Park Service, in a unique public/
private stewardship, the Kenmore Association with over seventy years of
preservation experience can protect and manage this land of
extraordinary importance to our nation's heritage. The passage of this
proposed legislation will ensure Ferry Farm's safe keeping.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and attention. This concludes
my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.007
Statement of James Pickman, President, The Gateway Visitor Center
Corporation
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 4109, a bill to
authorize the Gateway Visitor Center at Independence National
Historical Park (INHP) in Philadelphia. I am the president of the
Gateway Visitor Center Corporation, a nonprofit, Section 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization dedicated to working in partnership with the
National Park Service to develop and operate the proposed center. The
Gateway Visitor Center, or GVC, is intended to serve as the primary
visitor orientation facility for the national park, the surrounding
historic district, the City of Philadelphia, and the greater
metropolitan region. It will be located within INHP boundaries on
Independence Mall, just north of Independence Hall and the Liberty
Bell. H.R. 4109--enacted on a timely basis--is essential to the
realization of this regional gateway mission.
In my statement this morning, I would like to describe briefly how
the GVC was conceived by the National Park Service and other
stakeholders, the partnership that will be responsible for the center's
development and operation, the partnership's vision for the GVC, how
the facility will be funded, and the critical need for H.R. 4109.
Background
The concept of a regional visitor center on Independence Mall
emerged from the convergence of two parallel explorations--one
conducted by the National Park Service and the other by The Pew
Charitable Trusts.
Through its general management plan process begun in 1993 and
completed in April 1997, the National Park Service (NPS) undertook a
comprehensive review of the future management and use of INHP, with a
focus on Independence Mall. This three block, 15-acre mall was created
in the 1950's and 1960's through the demolition of over 140 buildings
in order to provide an appropriate setting for Independence Hall and
create a vibrant, public urban space. Unfortunately, these objectives
have not been realized. The Park Service review and resulting plan,
which received loud and clear public support, calls for a complete
redoing of Independence Mall with the development of a new regional
visitor orientation facility as a central element. Today's testimony by
Destry Jarvis of the NPS provides greater detail on the Park Service's
general management plan process and content.
At the same time as the Park Service was conducting its review, the
Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the nation's largest
philanthropies, concluded from a study it commissioned that greater
Philadelphia has been missing an opportunity for significant economic
development by failing to cultivate its potential in the tourism
industry. To address this need, the Trusts pursued two related
objectives. The first--increasing the marketing of the region's
existing attractions--resulted in the establishment of the Greater
Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, a $12 million partnership
among the Trusts, the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The second objective was to create a magnificent regional
orientation facility on Independence Mall. The Trusts concluded that
although INHP contains the most enduring of historical treasures, its
existing visitor center is poorly located and is inadequate for
accommodating and orienting significant numbers of people to the park
and other city and regional attractions. And there was clear consensus
among all interested parties that a new visitor center needed to be
constructed right on the mall--a location more accessible to the
Liberty Bell and Independence Hall (the leading attractions in the
Philadelphia region), as well as to major travel arteries.
As a result of their similar conclusions, in the summer of 1995,
the Trusts and NPS joined forces to explore together the feasibility of
a new visitor orientation facility on Independence Mall. After a
rigorous due diligence analysis that affirmed the center's feasibility,
the Pew Trusts, with NPS support, proceeded to seek funding for a new
Gateway Visitor Center--a facility that would be owned by NPS and serve
as the visitor center for INHP and for the city and surrounding region
as well.
The Partnership
Consistent with its genesis, the development and operation of the
GVC will reflect the partnership between the National Park Service and
other city and regional stakeholders, the latter represented by the
recently established Gateway Visitor Center Corporation (GVCC). As
noted above, GVCC is a nonprofit, Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
corporation created solely for the purposes of working with the
National Park Service to develop and operate the GVC. Its board of
directors consists of the following members:
Edward G. Rendell, mayor of Philadelphia
Maria Keating Titelman, deputy chief of staff to Governor Ridge
Thomas Donovan (chair), retired vice chair of Mellon Bank and
chair of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation
(GPTMC)
Donald Kimelman, director of the Venture Fund, The Pew
Charitable Trusts
Meryl Levitz, president of GPTMC.
Three additional board members will be elected shortly,
representing a national perspective, such as a renowned historian
specializing in 18th century America. NPS works closely with the GVCC
board. Representatives of the Park Service attend each meeting as
nonvoting participants, and they will continue to do so in the future.
The design, construction, and operation of the center will be
governed by partnership agreements between NPS and GVCC. In essence,
NPS will have the right to approve of all aspects of the facility's
design and to assure that the construction conforms to the approved
design. Once completed, the GVC will be donated to NPS. The facility
will be operated and managed jointly on a long-term basis by the GVCC
and NPS. An operating partnership agreement will define the
relationship between NPS and GVCC on a number of items of particular
concern to both parties, such as ongoing liaison between the GVCC and
the park, content of GVC exhibits, ticketing for Independence Hall, the
presence and role of park staff in the GVC, and the management and
oversight of first amendment activities in or near the GVC. In
addition, the agreement will set forth policies for addressing such
matters as the sale of merchandise, the rental of GVC space, the
display and content of written materials, and the maintenance of the
facility.
Gateway Visitor Center
In furtherance of the joint vision of NPS and GVCC, the Gateway
Visitor Center is intended as the region's primary point of visitor
orientation by providing a range of quality services and programs.
Without overshadowing INHP's remarkable buildings as well as other
nearby treasures, the center would be an attraction in its own right.
It would offer visitors an exciting, informative experience before they
set off to encounter the park, the city and the region. A theme of
heritage would help integrate the services and programs of the center
and its surroundings. There would also be an emphasis on the virtues of
modern Philadelphia, including the world-class museums, theaters and
other cultural and leisure-time amenities.
Through personal services, exhibits and displays, visitors will
gain a contextual understanding of the park and its surroundings, and
will be motivated to develop personal itineraries that take advantage
of a variety of resources available throughout the city and region.
Visitors will also be able to gain information and tickets to tours,
attractions and events in the area; make reservations for
accommodations, restaurants and transportation; purchase items at a
book and gift store; see informative and exciting films about the
creation of our nation and about the attractions of Philadelphia and
the surrounding region; and have a light meal. The GVC will also be the
distribution site for free tickets for admission to Independence Hall
during peak periods.
As currently envisioned, the GVC will consist of about 50,000
square feet and be located on the center block of Independence Mall. As
noted above, the NPS general management plan calls for a comprehensive
effort to revitalize the mall, with the GVC serving as a catalytic and
key component. The first phase of this revitalization initiative
consists of a new and improved pavilion for the Liberty Bell; a
renovated and enhanced underground parking garage; the GVC; and
rejuvenation of the mall itself with a lovely outdoor cafe, kiosks,
formal and informal seating areas and gathering spaces, and a park
setting for viewing Independence Hall or simply playing and relaxing.
Subsequent phases include a new facility focused on the Constitution
and an institute to provide a structured educational experience
primarily for school children.
Funding
Development. The projected cost of the GVC is $30 million,
consisting of $24 million for development of the building and interior
exhibits and furnishings, and $6 million for an endowment to help
support operations. This funding has been fully committed from non
Federal sources as follows:
The Pew Charitable Trusts----$10.0 million
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania----$10.0 million
The City of Philadelphia----5.0 million
The Annenberg Foundation----2.7 million
The Connelly Foundation----2.0 million
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation----.3 million
Operations. Once completed the GVC's annual operations will be
supported through revenue generating activities, endowment income, and
various stakeholder contributions. As described in the NPS testimony
earlier this morning, an appropriate, fair share contribution from NPS
will be required to help cover the GVC's maintenance and operating
costs.
The Need for H.R. 4109
The timely enactment of H.R. 4109 is essential to the realization
of the regional gateway mission of the center. In essence, the bill
under consideration this morning will:
Allow the GVC to provide information and orientation
services that extend beyond the bounds of INHP. For example,
under H.R. 4109, the GVC will be able to distribute information
and tickets about attractions throughout the city and the
surrounding region. And in the proposed store, it would be
permitted to sell high quality educational merchandise relating
to the greater Philadelphia region.
Allow the GVC to engage in various revenue-generating
activities--consistent with its regional mission and subject to
the approval of the NPS--in order to help support center
operations. For example, H.R. 4109 will permit the GVC to
operate a cafe, rent the center for conferences and receptions,
and charge fees for making hotel reservations and securing
tickets for attractions outside of the park boundaries.
Finally and related to the preceding item, H.R. 4109,
will allow the revenues generated by the GVC's facilities and
services to be used to help pay for the costs of operating the
center.
Time is also of the essence, and enactment this year of H.R. 4109
is critical. The Pew Charitable Trusts and other private
philanthropies, the City of Philadelphia, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania committed their funds towards the development of a
regional gateway center, a facility that would provide orientation and
information about INHP and the city and region. The inability to
achieve this vision--through the failure to enact H.R. 4109 this year--
would, at a minimum, most likely result in serious delays, jeopardizing
the project and the substantial achievement of the Park Service's plans
for Independence Mall.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I cannot impress upon
you enough the importance of H.R. 4109 to fulfillment of the vision.
Thank you.
Supplemental Sheet
James Pickman (president of Gateway Visitor Center Corporation) 3464
Macomb Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 686-1160
Fax: (202) 966-3260
Outline of Testimony: Support of H.R. 4109, a bill to authorize the
Gateway Visitor Center at Independence National Historical Park in
Philadelphia
I. Background: The concept of a regional visitor center, or Gateway
Visitor Center, on Independence Mall at Independence National
Historical Park emerged from the convergence of two parallel
explorations--one conducted by the National Park Service through its
general management plan process and the other by The Pew Charitable
Trusts.
II. The Partnership: The design, construction, and operation of the
Gateway Visitor Center (GVC) will be carried out by a partnership
between the National Park Service and the Gateway Visitor Center
Corporation, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization
representing a broad range of stakeholders.
III. The Gateway Visitor Center: The GVC is intended to serve as
the primary visitor orientation facility for the national park, the
surrounding historic district, the City of Philadelphia, and the
greater metropolitan region. The center is a catalyst and key component
of the Park Service's plans to revitalize Independence Mall--in
furtherance of its recently completed general management plan.
IV. Funding for the GVC: This $30 million facility has been fully
funded by private sector and non-Federal public sector sources, led by
The Pew Charitable Trusts.
V. Critical Need for H.R. 4109: Timely enactment of H.R. 4109 is
essential to realizing the regional mission of the center. Failure to
enact the bill this year will, at a minimum, most likely result in
serious delays, jeopardizing the project and the substantial
achievement of the Park Service's plans for Independence Mall.
JAMES PICKMAN
For the past 19 years, James Pickman has been assisting national
and local philanthropies, other nonprofit entities, and government
agencies to design and manage programs, conduct strategic reviews, and
structure and implement projects intended primarily to revitalize
depressed urban areas, build stronger communities, provide affordable
housing, meet facilities needs of nonprofit organizations, or spur
economic development and jobs. One of his current assignments entails
managing the development of the Gateway Visitor Center on Independence
Mall in Philadelphia as part of a larger collaborative effort to
revitalize the entire mall. The center would provide orientation to
Independence National Historical Park, the surrounding historic
district, and myriad other attractions in the city and region. Another
current assignment is managing the National Community Development
Initiative, a consortium of nine foundations, six corporations and the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which
provides substantial funding to assist community development
corporations across the country achieve a higher level of scale and
impact in revitalizing their neighborhoods.
Previously, Mr. Pickman held senior positions in the United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Bedford-Stuyvesant
Restoration Corporation, and a New York City real estate company. He
also practiced law for a Wall Street firm. Mr. Pickman holds a Bachelor
of Arts degree from Princeton University and an LL.B. from Harvard Law
School.
______
Statement of Alan S. Front, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public
Land
Mr. Chairman, my name is Alan Front, and I am Senior Vice President
of The Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national non-profit land
conservation organization that works with public agencies, landowners
and communities to conserve natural, recreational and cultural resource
lands for public use and enjoyment. I am pleased to appear before you
today to discuss the remarkable cooperative efforts now underway to
protect key lands in the corridor of Georgia's Chattahoochee River--
efforts that would be significantly forwarded by, and in many cases
require, the realignment of Park Service boundaries as proposed in H.R.
4141.
The scope and breadth of these multi-party efforts are reflective
of the many faces of the Chattahoochee itself. The river and its
corridor lands are a vital source of water for the City of Atlanta, and
more broadly for all of north Georgia and for a substantial swath of
the southeastern United States. They host diverse wildlife, significant
natural communities, and irreplaceable historic resources in the midst
of one of America's most vibrant urban areas. And they afford a
recreational haven for the millions of visitors each year to the dozen
or so non-contiguous parkland areas that together comprise the
Chattahoochee National Recreation Area.
Over the past decade my organization has been gratified to work in
partnership with willing-seller landowners, the National Park Service,
and a diverse and ever-growing community of public officials,
organizations, and individuals to secure properties of public
significance within the current authorized boundaries of the
Chattahoochee River NRA. Specifically, TPL has assisted during this
period in NPS acquisition, through purchase and exchange of eight high-
priority ownerships along the river, including critical habitat,
recreation, and watershed protection lands. We have been consistently
and profoundly grateful for Speaker Gingrich's energetic leadership,
and for the efforts of other members of the Georgia delegation and of
Congress at large, in support of this important program.
As much as the investment of energy and funding has done to address
protection needs with the Park Service's existing boundaries along the
river, we also have witnessed the practical limits the Service now
faces at the Chattahoochee. A number of areas originally included in
the NRA boundaries have been developed and are no longer appropriate
candidates for public management and use. Conversely, many properties
that would logically augment current NPS holdings--park quality lands
that would link existing ``islands'' of Federal ownership, allow
synergistic improvement of the existing trial system, and provide both
watershed protection and much-needed recreation opportunities--lie
outside the boundaries, interspersed between NPS-managed lands in the
designated ``area of national interest'' from Lake Lanier to the
Atlanta city limits.
H.R. 4141 would address this schism by adopting an achievable
greenway approach for the Chattahoochee NRA. Developed neighborhoods
would be excluded from the Park Service boundary, while other key
resource and connector lands would be added to it. That this strategy
will promote a manageable NRA that optimally serves public needs is
clear. Just as clearly, this approach will have a power-
ful leveraging effort, teaming Federal efforts with an astounding array
of non-Federal energies and investment.
The Chattahoochee greenway concept has been embraced by corporate
leaders, community and conservation groups, the philanthropic
community, and a panoply of state and local government agencies and
officials. This partnership has committed itself to protecting not only
the designated area of national interest, but an even longer stretch of
the Chattahoochee from the upper reaches of the river's headwaters to
urban Atlanta and beyond. Georgia governor Zell Miller had dedicated
$15 million, fully three-fourths of the state's Rivercare 2000 budget,
to this effort in the coming year. Considerable charitable monies also
are being committed, some of which will be applied to Park Service
acquisitions, stretching Federal dollars. These non-Federal commitments
presume, and in some cases are predicated upon, a concurrent Federal
commitment to the greenway.
Such a commitment will need to come quickly to realize this vision
and to take advantage of these complementary investments. The
metropolitan Atlanta real estate market is strong; even though they
might prefer to participate in this public spirited program many
willing-seller landowners will not wait until next year if public
purchase cannot proceed soon. For many properties along the river, this
is a time of great promise, and great peril.
Consequently, The Trust for Public Land and our many colleagues in
the Chattahoochee River Protection effort deeply appreciate the timely
introduction of this important legislation and its expeditious
consideration by the Committee.
______
Statement of D. Blaine Weaver, Washington County, Maryland
Thank you for allowing me to make a presentation today,
July 16, 1998. My name is D. Blaine Weaver and I reside in
Washington County, Maryland, in the 6th Congressional District
represented by Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett. Today, I am here
advocating support for H.R. 4158. Why am I doing this, because
I have five grandchildren, ages six to ten years old, who just
completed a week of fishing and water skiing at our summer home
in Washington County, Maryland along the C&O Canal National
Historical Park (Park). Since they enjoy these activities very
much, their question to me and mine to you is ``WHY WON'T WE BE
ABLE TO USE THIS PROPERTY AFTER THE YEAR 2000?''
Our property Track No. 38-109 is located along the Potomac
River, above Dam #4 where there is no canal and all the
properties in this area are high (60-75 feet) above the river,
out of sight from the Tow Path. These properties have never
been used by the public nor the National Park Service (NPS)
because the Tow Path is immediately adjacent to the river and
75 feet below the properties which are located on the rock
cliff.
Many of the adjacent lessees (right of use) and I feel that
the Department of the Interior's employees in the early to mid
1970's used heavy duress tactics, always with the threat of
condemnation by the Federal Government, to obtain these
properties. Our only option was to sell the property to the
government and retain the use or have the property condemned.
In our case we were not really paid the fair market price for
the property and the 25 year lease fees were deducted along
with the salvage fee at the time of the sale leaving the net
proceeds to us. Anyone knowing future value of money knows the
Federal Government received a real bargain.
Also, 23 years ago, in this same time period, I was misled
by statements issued by the Park Service Acquisition Officer,
that they would procure all adjoining property along the entire
184 mile length of the canal and it would become the C&O Canal
Historical National Park. This did not occur. I can cite many
instances where properties were not procured or very favorable
conditions were granted. This occurred all along the canal from
Georgetown to Cumberland, Maryland.
I'll cite a few of these instances:
1. Starting in Georgetown, there is Water Street between the
restored C&O Canal and the Potomac River with many restored
offices, condos, restaurants and businesses.
2. In our immediate area, above Dam #4, Jack Berkson deeded 17
feet along the Potomac River (actual Tow Path) of his 90 acres
to the government. He reserved the right to cross the Tow Path
and place docks for 300 feet along the river during the summer
months for a period of 99 years. Mr. Berkson is currently
developing the 90 acres in lot sites for residential housing.
3. Also, above Dam #4, Mr. Perini did not give up any of his
land and now has a very beautiful residence immediately above
the river and Tow Path. In addition the property was subdivided
into residential lots.
4. Also, above Dam #4, The Potomac Fish and Game Club with 550
members has numerous cabins and trailers situated between the
C&O Canal and the Potomac River.
The NPS has changed the original boundaries of the C&O Canal by
acquiring our properties, which were not part of the original C&O
Canal.
The NPS declared that they were going to turn the properties back
to nature, as the leases (right to use) expired. However, in our
immediate area the foundations and various types of junk remain on
these properties. Also, when the COO Canal was in operation, the
property owners along the river interacted with the canal workers. We
have kept this tradition alive for people using the Tow Path by
providing assistance, directions and emergency help when needed. Just
last week, a hiker from the Netherlands lost his back pack with his
credit cards and money and he asked to use the cell phone to call his
bank in the Netherlands. I referred him to a regular phone
approximately a mile away.
For many years, I have provided river activities for civic clubs.
The local Boys and Girls Club, Inc. have used our steps down to the
river to rock rappel off the high rock cliffs along the Tow Path. The
local Kiwanis Club has sponsored the Girls, Inc. club for a day at the
river, including swimming, water skiing and lunch.
Apparently, the NPS will issue blinders to all the bicyclists and
hikers, so that they do not see all of the non nature properties still
along the C&O Canal and Tow Path. Lo and behold, if they look across
the Potomac River to the West Virginia landscape, they will see all
kinds of non nature property and activity which includes new private
boat ramps, boat docks, all types of housing from mobile homes to high
priced residential homes. I wonder if NPS is planning to also turn the
West Virginia side of the Potomac River back to nature?
After stating for years that the NPS did not have the authority to
extend leases or issue new ones, they are currently offering leases for
up to 99 years under the Historic Leasing Program concerning historic
properties within the park. Some of the properties in our area are
being advertised for commercial purposes such as, bed and breakfasts
and restaurants. Who determines that the property is historic? Is the
NPS currently in the business of leasing?
This property has been in our family 41 years, (Track No. 38-109),
I request your assistance in obtaining a 99-year lease extension rights
of use and occupancy or the opportunity to purchase back the land from
the government.
All the other lessees that I have spoken to want the same
opportunity to extend their lease rights of use and occupancy for 99
years or to purchase back the land from the government.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify at this hearing
and we sincerely seek your assistance and support of H.R. 4158.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.011
Statement of Peter Kirby, Southeast Regional Director, The Wilderness
Society
Dear Chairman Hansen:
On behalf of its over 200,000 members nationwide and over
4,000 in Georgia, The Wilderness Society supports the
worthwhile goal of this legislation to establish a continuous
greenway along a forty-eight mile stretch of the Chattahoochee
River in metropolitan Atlanta. As noted in the bill's findings,
the population in the area around the river is growing rapidly,
with major development of open space and adverse effects on the
river from construction, pollution and siltation. Unless action
is taken soon to preserve remaining natural, scenic and
historic resources along the river, our opportunities to
protect the nationally significant values within the river
corridor will be lost forever.
H.R. 4141 increases the authorized acreage of the park to
10,000 acres. It allows for the expansion of the boundaries up
to 2,000 acres on each bank of the river, as set out in a map
to be submitted by the National Park Service, with the intent
of connecting the existing separate, individual units of the
NRA. H.R. 4141 also authorizes $25 million for the Federal land
acquisition. This will be augmented with extensive matching
funds provided from the state of Georgia, local governments,
private foundations, corporations and other sources.
An expansion of the park will yield multiple benefits for
the ecology and the population of the area and the region. The
Chattahoochee River provides the drinking water for the Atlanta
metropolitan area and almost half the people of the state; the
greenway will help maintain water quality as a buffer from
development near the river. There is also a great need for
additional recreation opportunities in the area to keep pace
with the explosive growth in population within recent years. As
noted in the statement of the National Park Service, linear
corridors linking the existing units would afford valuable
opportunities for walking, jogging, hiking and nature study on
both sides ``of one of the Nation's great urban rivers.''
As urged in the statement of the National Park Service, we
request the Committee to make some vitally-needed improvements
in the legislation that will help make it possible to establish
this linear park. Of great concern is the ``opt out'' provision
of Section 2. The great danger is that landowners may quickly
elect to ``opt out'' of the park within the very short time
line called for in the Act without there ever being the
opportunity for the National Park Service to even negotiate.
This could be particularly damaging here where the chance to
join units is limited in areas that have been heavily
developed. Also of concern in Section 2 is the bill's
prohibition on land acquisition without the consent of the
landowner. The National Park Service notes that it doubts
condemnation will be used for this project but also states it
may be a necessary last resort to clear title or prevent
irreparable damage to key values. We recommend that these two
provisions be taken out.
This goal of a Chattahoochee River greenway has the backing
of a wide and influential range of leaders and groups in the
region who are committed to ensuring it becomes a reality. We
commend Representative Gingrich for his leadership with the
introduction of the bill, the Trust for Public Land and our
other conservation allies for the development of the proposal,
Governor Zen Miller and others for their committments to future
funding and to others in the Congressional delegation for their
close attention to this initiative. We hope the Committee will
move the bill along, with changes as noted, so that it can be
enacted this year.
Please include this letter in the printed record for the
Comittee's hearing on July 16, 1998.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0342.050