U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

50–342 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

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
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
(III)

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
(1)

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
2

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 optout 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-
3

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
4

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
5

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-
6

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 fastestgrowing 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 publicprivate 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-
7

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,
8

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.
9
10
11
12
13

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
14

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-
15

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
16

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.
17

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-
18

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.
19

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.
20

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
21

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
22

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-andso 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
23

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 riverbased, 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 optout 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
24

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
25

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-
26

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.
27

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
28

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?
29

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.
30

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.]
31

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-
32

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,
33

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
34

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.
35

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
36

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-
37

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
38

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.
39

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.
40

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.
41

Also the National Park Service declared that they were going to

turn the properties back to nature, as the lessees—or the right-touse—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 mid1970’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
42

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.]
43

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.
44
45
46
47

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 Philadelphiabased 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:
48

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 worldclass 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
49

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.
50

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 evergrowing 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 muchneeded 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-
51

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.
52

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.
53
54
55
56
57

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.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95