[Senate Report 104-294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 469

104th Congress                                                   Report
                               SENATE
 2d Session                                                     104-294
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


 
                NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ISLAND ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                               H.R. 1508

TO REQUIRE THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF CERTAIN 
   REAL PROPERTY IN ANACOSTIA PARK TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF 
    NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ISLAND, A CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND FAMILY-
                             ORIENTED PARK




                 June 26, 1996.--Ordered to be printed


                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

               TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN GLENN, Ohio                     WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware
SAM NUNN, Georgia                    WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas                THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        HANK BROWN, Colorado
    Albert L. McDermott, Staff 
             Director
  Susanne Marshall, Professional 
               Staff
  Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff 
             Director
  Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk


                                                       Calendar No. 469
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-294
_______________________________________________________________________


                 NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ISLAND ACT OF 1995

                                _______
                                

                 June 26, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1508]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (H.R. 1508) to direct the transfer of title 
to the District of Columbia of certain real property in 
Anacostia Park to facilitate the development of National 
Children's Island, a cultural, educational, and family-oriented 
park, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                               I. PURPOSE

    The purpose of H.R. 1508 is to transfer title of Heritage 
Island and portions of Kingman Island, location within the 
Anacostia River, from the National Park Service to the District 
of Columbia to facilitate the development of a park and free 
playground.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The islands were created in 1916 by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers as part of a reclamation project for improving the 
flow of the Anacostia River. The property is under the control 
of the Department of Interior as part of Anacostia Park. In 
1968 the National Park Service (NPS) proposed developing this 
area as a recreation center similar to Tivoli Garden in 
Copenhagen, but the project did not move forward.
    In 1975, the District of Columbia (DC) government proposed 
a park on these islands as recommended by the City's 
Bicentennial Commission. The plan was approved by the National 
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). The National Park Service 
and the District of Columbia then entered into a Memoranda of 
Agreement authorizing DC to establish, construct, operate, and 
maintain a children's park on Kingman and Heritage Islands 
using grants, local revenues, and private donations. The 
approved plans reflected the basic concept of an innovative, 
natural playground with some paid attractions to cover 
operating costs. Sufficient funds to complete the work never 
materialized.
    In 1981, the District government asked National Children's 
Island, Inc. (NCI), the non-profit organization created to 
implement the Bicentennial park plan to present a new proposal 
that would not require additional funds from the City, but 
instead be developed using private capital.
    Since that time NCI has been working with the District 
government and the National Park Service to develop a plan that 
would meet all objectives.
    By 1992 the combination of regulatory and approval 
processes between the NPS and DC were deemed too cumbersome, 
and the Park Service agreed to a transfer of jurisdiction to 
allow DC to manage the project without day-to-day oversight by 
the NPS.
    On November 30, 1992, the NPS transmitted the transfer of 
jurisdiction proposal including the plat restrictions to the 
NCPC. On January 7, 1993, the NCPC approved the transfer of 
jurisdiction. The plat restrictions were a vital element in 
obtaining approval of the transfer of jurisdiction. It was 
through the plat that the NPS and NCPC set specific parameters 
to control development and ensure that an appropriate park 
environment, similar in density to that envisioned in the 1975 
approved plan, would result.
    Plat restrictions controlled the height and square footage 
of structures and payment, and included the requirement for the 
simultaneous opening of a free playground for children.
    On July 13, 1993, the D.C. Council approved the transfer of 
jurisdiction and passed the Children's Island Development Plan 
Act of 1993 (D.C. Law 10-57). The transfer plat provided that 
by July 13, 1996, all approvals be obtained and ground broken, 
or the land automatically reverted to the NPS.
    It is evident that the project will not obtain all the 
necessary approvals by July of this year. This has led the 
District of Columbia to request the transfer of title in order 
to provide the District with autonomy in carrying out the 
recreational park development of the islands.

                    iii. section-by-section analysis

Section 1. Short title

    The short title of the bill is the ``National Children's 
Island Act of 1995''.

Section 2. Definitions

    This section provides eight definitions for the bill.

Section 3. Property transfer

    This section outlines the terms and conditions for the 
transfer of title to Heritage Island and portions of Kingman 
Island from the Secretary of Interior to the government of the 
District of Columbia.
    Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary shall transfer 
fee title of the lands to the District of Columbia.
    Subsection (b) provides that the Secretary of the Interior 
shall grant any necessary utility coordinator easements across 
Federal lands to carry out this project.
    Subsection (c) provides that the development shall proceed 
as outlined in the transfer of jurisdiction plat, but it does 
not limit the District's authority to make alterations as the 
project proceeds as long as such modifications are consistent 
with the plat restrictions.
    Subsection (d) sets forth that the transfer of title is 
subject to the condition that the lands only be used for the 
stated purpose of a National Children's Island and provides for 
reversion of the lands to the United States if the Secretary of 
the Interior determines the terms of transfer have been 
violated. This subsection outlines the tests which will be 
considered in the determination of a reversion by the 
Secretary, but specifies that time periods as set forth in 
these tests shall be extended during the pendency of any 
lawsuit which seeks to enjoin the development or operations of 
the islands or the administrative process leading to such 
development or operation. In the event of a reversion, the 
District shall be responsible for any claims and judgments 
arising during the period for which the District held title to 
the property, and shall ensure that any nongovernmental entity 
authorized to carry out and operate National Children's Island 
shall post necessary bonds to provide for restoration of the 
island in the event of reversion.

Section 4. Provisions relating to lands transferred and easements 
        granted

    This section sets forth a number of other provisions 
relating to the land transfer.
    Subsection (a) requires that a free public playground be 
established and opened at the same time that any recreation 
park is opened to the public.
    Subsection (b) prohibits public parking on the Islands with 
limited exceptions.
    Subsection (c) requires that before construction commences, 
final design plans are subject to review and approval of the 
National Capital Planning Commission and the District of 
Columbia in accordance with the Children's Island Development 
Plan Act of 1993, and specifically states that the District of 
Columbia shall carry out its review of this project in full 
compliance with all applicable provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act.

Section 5. Effect of property transfer

    This section clarifies that the transfer of this property 
voids the 1993 transfer of jurisdiction from the NPS to the 
District, except for references to plat restrictions; and 
removes this property from Anacostia Park.
    Subsection (b) authorizes the use of lands currently leased 
by the United States to the District for parking facilities and 
other necessary and appropriate functions in support of 
National Children's Island.

Section 6. Savings provision

    This section clarifies that the Act is (1) not intended as 
a congressional endorsement of the National Children's Island 
project; (2) is not intended to exempt the project from 
environmental, health and safety laws; and (3) does not 
preclude additional conditions on the development or operation 
of the project.

                             iv. discussion

    The property to be transferred is Heritage Island and the 
portion of Kingman Island that extends south of the Benning 
Road Bridge. Both are located in the Anacostia River, adjacent 
to RFK Memorial Stadium. The portion of Kingman Island not part 
of the transfer is north of the Benning Road Bridge and is 
developed as part of Langston Gulf Course.
    The current proposal of the District of Columbia for these 
islands is to be converted into a safe and accessible 
landscaped park. This conforms with the longstanding view of 
the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning 
Commission for the establishment of an active recreation center 
on this site as part of its comprehensive plan for the Nation's 
Capital.
    Development of these islands is also consistent with the 
newly released NCPC ``Monumental Core'' plan which envisions 
Washington in the 21st century to: ``Convert the area around 
RFK Stadium into a new eastern gateway to Washington, featuring 
museums, parks and educational centers.''
    Congress has taken no role in discussions surrounding the 
future utilization of federal lands adjacent to Heritage and 
Kingman Islands. However, speculation has begun as to the 
future of the area and RFK Stadium in light of the impending 
move of the Washington Redskins to a new stadium under 
construction in Maryland.
    Public Law 99-581, October 29, 1986, conveyed title to RFK 
Stadium to the District of Columbia and leased the underlying 
land and parking lots to DC for 50 years without consideration. 
The proposed legislation does not alter the nature of this 
relationship. However, the Mayor is given discretion to 
authorize use of these leased lands for parking and other 
facilities deemed necessary in support of National Children's 
Island.
    As outlined previously, these islands have been under the 
control of DC for the past twenty years. As described by the 
National Park System Service: ``The present condition of these 
islands is not park-like. There are overgrown areas, piles of 
debris such as composting leaves and tree stumps, and 
ramshackle structures from DC's earlier failed attempts to 
develop these islands. Over the years, National Guard exercises 
and unpermitted police disposal of incendiary devices have also 
occurred here.''
    The National Park Service has supported the efforts of the 
District to transform these islands and invested a great deal 
of time, energy and effort in crafting the terms of development 
outlined in the 1993 transfer of jurisdiction plat. According 
to these terms, when the entire park project is complete, 90 
percent of the land will be in the form of accessible, 
landscaped open space; a free playground will take up 30 
percent of the property; and structures in the educational and 
recreational park will cover no more than about 10 percent of 
the total land area.
    On May 18, 1995, Denis P. Galvin, Associate Director, 
Planning and Development, National Park Service, testified 
before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Lands, in opposition to H.R. 1508 unless the 
bill was ``amended to conform to the development, planning, and 
reverter conditions contained on the plat * * *.'' He stated 
further, ``Since the National Children's Island was only a 
concept, the transfer of jurisdiction included specific 
parameters to control development and ensure that a park 
environment would result.''
    The House of Representatives did amend the bill to 
incorporate the restrictions on development as proposed by the 
National Park Service. This is found in Section 3(c) of H.R. 
1508 which states: ``The development of National Children's 
Island shall proceed as specified in paragraph 3 of the legend 
on the plat or as otherwise authorized by the District by 
agreement, lease, resolution, appropriate executive action, or 
otherwise.''
    In order to provide a more complete understanding of this 
provision, following is the text of paragraph 3 of the plat 
referenced in Section 3(c) of the bill:

    (3) Development of the Recreation Park shall only occur 
within the following design parameters:
          (a) buildings or structures shall not exceed 50 feet 
        in height, measured from the lowest point on the 
        natural ground level from which the building or 
        structure rises to the building roof line or top of the 
        structure.
          (b) buildings footprints shall not exceed more than 5 
        acres of the Recreation Park in area; and
          (c) paved surfaces, including paved areas occupied by 
        structures, but not including areas occupied by 
        buildings, shall not exceed more than 23 percent of the 
        Recreation Park.

    It is noted that the section of the bill specifying 
compliance with paragraph 3 of the plat includes language, ``or 
as otherwise authorized by the District * * *.'' This should 
not be construed to mean that the plat restrictions can be 
summarily rejected or overruled by the District. Rather, it is 
intended to give the District flexibility in making adjustments 
to a final design plan. The plat restrictions set the 
parameters within which the final design plan must fall.
    It is also instructive to note that in a letter dated April 
17, 1996, D.C. Delegate Norton, as the original sponsor of H.R. 
1508, wrote to Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman 
Ted Stevens that several valid concerns had been raised with 
the bill as introduced, and they were addressed at her request 
in the House Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
This included, ``A provision requiring National Children's 
Island to comply with previously agreed upon design parameters. 
Specifically, buildings cannot exceed fifty feet in height, and 
no more than five acres can be under roof and no more than 23% 
of the surface can be paved.'' This further clarifies that both 
the House of Representatives and the Senate agree that the 
design parameters are those incorporated in the earlier 
transfer of jurisdiction plat.
    Before any work is started on the site, DC must comply with 
all applicable Federal and DC environmental and planning laws 
and regulations. At present, placing a recreation park on this 
property is only a proposal. Information obtained through the 
public, environmental and planning processes will determine 
what the actual design of the development, as permitted by the 
transfer plat, will be.
    While the government of the District of Columbia strongly 
supports moving forward with development of these islands, the 
Committee was contacted by a number of individuals and 
organizations who expressed their opposition to this project. 
Their concerns centered on the disruption to the residential 
neighborhoods of a project intended to attract visitors from 
outside the community, as well as the environmental impact on 
the Anacostia River.
    In 1993, a suit was filed challenging the Secretary of 
Interior's authority to transfer lands absent an Environmental 
Impact Statement. The suit prevailed. Opponents of this 
legislation argue that it makes the court action moot. However, 
the legislation does not waive compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act. D.C. Law 10-57 also requires that, in 
addition to all other requirements for approvals, permits and 
procedures which are necessary, a development plan for 
Children's Island must be prepared and submitted to the D.C. 
Council for review and approval; and this development plan by 
law must include an environmental impact statement.
    The Committee is aware of the 1995 District of Columbia 
Municipal Regulations covering Ward 6 Planning and Development 
to ``Prevent commercial development of Kingman Island 
(Children's Island) to avoid adverse effects on neighborhoods; 
island and adjacent park areas to be improved for community and 
city-wide recreation use. It shall not be used for stadium or 
stadium-related purposes.'' This provision does not oppose the 
development of a recreational or educational park on the 
islands. It restates the need to avoid adverse effects on the 
neighborhoods, supports the recreational purpose, and appears 
to be in response to proposals under discussion in 1994 to 
expand and build a new stadium. The new stadium plan would have 
encroached on the long-planned goal of developing the islands 
for recreational purposes.
    It is anticipated that the District of Columbia will hear 
and consider all concerns relative to a development plan 
through it's local planning and review process. it is not the 
role of Congress to usurp the decision-making processes of the 
local government. As stated clearly in the legislation, 
Congress is not endorsing or approving any construction, 
development, or operation of these islands.
    It is incumbent upon the mayor, the D.C. Council, and the 
National Capital Planning Commission to give consideration to 
all views before reaching a conclusion on any final plan for 
National Children's Island. The process should encourage a 
comprehensive review that includes hearing from the residents 
in the affected communities.
    In addition, Congress is not taking a position on any 
business transactions entered into by the District of Columbia. 
Neither the National Park Service nor the Congress conducted 
studies on the commercial feasibility or economic viability of 
the project. It is recommended that before making final 
commitments, the District of Columbia should consider any 
financial burdens of a project, such as infrastructure and 
other associated costs. The D.C. Financial Control Board should 
also be consulted.
    A lack of sustained interest in this project and sporadic 
financing problems have plagued this project in various forms 
since it was first proposed.
    Eliminating a duplicative layer of management and 
accompanying paperwork is intended to streamline the process 
and avoid additional delays. As to whether the transfer of 
jurisdiction arrangement was unable to address the previous 
delays of this project, we will be able to gauge only if, and 
when the project is completed.

                         v. legislative history

    H.R. 1508 was introduced on April 18, 1995 by D.C. Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton. A hearing was held on May 18, 1995 by 
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands of the 
Committee on Resources, House of Representatives. On October 
17, 1995, the bill was considered by the House Committee on 
Resources and ordered favorably reported as amended in the 
nature of a substitute. The bill was passed by the House of 
Representatives under Suspension of the Rules on October 30, 
1995, by voice vote. It was received in the Senate and referred 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. No hearing was held. 
On April 18, 1996, with a quorum present, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee by unanimous voice vote ordered the bill 
favorably reported.

                     vi. estimated cost legislation

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 24, 1996.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 1508, the National Children's Act of 1995, as 
ordered reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on 
April 18, 1996. CBO estimates that H.R. 1508 would result in no 
significant cost to the federal government.
    H.R. 1508 would require the federal government to transfer, 
without compensation, title to certain property and easements 
to the District of Columbia to facilitate the construction of 
the proposed National Children's Island, a recreational park 
and playground approved by the District of Columbia under the 
Children's Island Development Plan Act of 1993. The bill would 
require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to make the 
transfer within six months of enactment.
    In addition, H.R. 1508 would provide for transferring the 
property back to the federal government if development or 
operation fails to meet specified timetables, if the park 
ceases activity for a period of two years, or if the property 
is converted to a use that is not authorized by the bill. If 
ownership of the property reverts to the federal government, it 
would be held harmless against any claims or judgments that 
arose while the District of Columbia held title. The bill also 
would require that any developer or operator establish an 
escrow fund, post a surety bond, or provide a letter of credit 
sufficient to return the property to a condition suitable for 
use by the National Park Service.
    The property that would be conveyed under this bill is 
neither generating income today nor likely to generate income 
in the future. Thus, CBO estimates that the transfer would 
result in no loss of receipts to the federal government. We 
also estimate that DOI would not incur any significant costs in 
conducting the transfer.
    Under the bill, DOI could seek reimbursement from the 
District of Columbia for any actual, unbudgeted costs incurred 
in transferring the property. DOI would then have the authority 
to spend these funds without further action by appropriations. 
Based on information provided by DOI, however, CBO expects that 
no reimbursement would occur under H.R. 1508.
    H.R. 1508 contains no intergovernmental or private sector 
mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4. The District of 
Columbia would incur some minimal costs primarily to review and 
approve plans for the Children's Island project, but such costs 
would result from voluntary participation in the project.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R. 
Righter, and for the local government impact, Theresa Gullo.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                         vii. regulatory impact

    Paragraph 11(b)(1) of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill 
evaluate ``the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill.''
    The enactment of this legislation would not have a 
significant regulatory impact on the public, nor would it 
constitute an undue regulatory burden on the National Park 
Service or the Department of the Interior.

                     viii. changes to existing law

    If enacted, H.R. 1508 would make no changes to existing 
law.

                                
