SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
55–029 l
1999
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED VISITORS CENTER
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–4
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
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
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
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
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
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
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hearing held February 11, 1999
Statements of Members:
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos, a Resident Commissioner in Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Statements of Witnesses:
Galvin, Denis P., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by John A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg, National Military Park
Prepared statement of
Kinsley, Robert, Managing Partner, Kinsley Equities
Prepared statement of
Powell, Walter L., Ph.D, President, Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association
Prepared statement of
Silbey, Franklin R., President, Franklin Silbey & Associates
Prepared statement of
Streeter, Ted, Councilman, Borough of Gettysburg
Prepared statement of
Woodford, Eileen, Northeast Regional Director, National Parks and Conservation Association
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Economic Impact Evaluation, Gettysburg National Military Park, General Management Plan Alternatives
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Santorum, Hon. Rick, a Senator in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Descendants of the NY 136th Infantry Regiment, The, prepared statement of
Gettysburg, The Friends of the National Parks at, prepared statement of
Hoeweler, Alan E., Chairman, Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc., Hagerstown, Maryland, prepared statement of
Letter from Mr. Hansen to Robert Stanton, National Park Service
Letter to Mr. Hansen from Randal J. Holderfield
Letter to Mr. Hansen from George J. Lower
Lower, George J., prepared statement of
Maruyama, Kinya, Architect, prepared statement of
Press release, Committee on Resources
Responses to questions from the Committee by the National Park Service
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED VISITORS CENTER
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order. We like to start on time. We would like to have the Ranking Member of the Full Committee George Miller with us but we understand he is sick. Part of this hearing is for his benefit and for Mr. Goodling and I haven't seen either one of them walk in.
Before we start I would just like to recognize we have some people here that have done a great job in that particular area. We are honored to have the mayor, Mayor William Troxell here, mayor of Gettysburg, Mr. John Murphy, Mr. Leonard Andrews, Richard Kreisher, Dr. Beverly Stanton and Angela Rosensteel Eckert. They are very impressive credentials that all of these people and they are obviously very knowledgeable about the issue at hand.
I am tempted to wait just a minute but sometimes around here you can wait forever because there are a lot of things going on. There are meetings all over. We expect to have members pop in.
I notice we have quite a number of folks that are standing and I am always embarrassed about that. I don't know what we do but this lower tier will not be used. If anyone is so inclined to come up there and sit quietly, we would be happy to have them come in and use this lower tier. I always hate to have people have to stand.
So if you are so inclined, go right ahead.
[Pause.]
Mr. HANSEN. We know this is a rather controversial issue that we are facing today. We had a number of letters from a lot of people. Mr. Miller had a very intense interest in this issue, as Mr. Goodling has, as everyone in Pennsylvania seems to have, and we would like to have them here. I will wait just a moment longer and then read this prepared statement and then turn to Mr. Romero-Barceló from Puerto Rico for his statement. Then Mr. Hefley on the Republican side also had an interest, I understand. We haven't seen him yet. So if you can bear with me, we will wait just a moment, please.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The letters may be found at the end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. I understand Mr. Miller will be with us so I will go ahead. We would like to welcome everyone to this oversight hearing today. It is almost exactly one year ago to the day that the Senate convened a hearing to examine problems with the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Kinsley proposal, yet very little change has occurred. In fact, the situation seems worse with the release of the draft General Management Plan by the Park Service.
These problems are serious and remain unresolved. They deal with a number of significant issues, including the public process and procedure the Park Service used with the plan and in selecting the Kinsley proposal, the proposed site selected for the construction of the visitors center, the Cyclorama building, local economic impacts, the battlefield artifacts, and the commercialization of the military park.
Praised by the Park Service as a model for future public-private partnerships involving the Park Service and the construction of visitors centers across the country, this proposal and the surrounding issues have instead soured the general public's perception of the Park Service and this project.
This attitude is not without merit. The Park Service has been less than forthcoming with information that should have been readily and openly available to the general public. The Park Service has narrowed the alternatives in the management plan, rendering public input meaningless. They also have exaggerated and overstated some problems while, at the same time, understated the significance of other issues. These actions clearly were intended to justify the decision they have already made to demolish the Cyclorama, along with the current visitors center and museum and to proceed with the implementation of the Kinsley proposal.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If this indeed is a model of things to come, it does not bode well for future projects of this nature.
Without question, Gettysburg is one of, if not the, most important and sacred battlefield in the history of this Nation. And looking at the more recent past of the battlefield, a good case can be made that we have done our best to thwart the good stewardship of this site. Things like the Gettysburg ''Cut'' and the National Tower all come to mind, of which we have received a lot of correspondence over the years.
We cannot allow another mistake to be made at Gettysburg. We must approach the issue at Gettysburg slowly and deliberately and above all, make sure that we are not proceeding with a project that will harm in any way the integrity and importance of this most cherished site.
I want to mention a few other things before we get started but I want to recognize our Ranking Minority member, Mr. Carlos Barceló, at this time for any statement he may make.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate holding this oversight hearing today. I think it is a very timely occasion and opportunity. And those of us who had the privilege to visit the Gettysburg National Military Park really know what an important monument and what important facilities these are for the whole Nation. Those who have had the opportunity to visit come away with awe and are very, very impressed also by what it represents to the history of our Nation and also to all of us who appear there to visit those facilities. This is an important matter that deserves the attention of the Subcommittee.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For nearly two years there has been an on-going public controversy with National Park Service plans to enter into a partnership with a developer to construct the visitors facility on private land within Gettysburg National Military Park. Many questions have been raised regarding the size, the location, the financing of such a new facility and the fact that the community feels that they have not been involved sufficiently or at all in the planning and in the decisions that have been made or appear to have been made. We hope that today's hearing will shed some light on these many questions.
It is our understanding that the National Park Service is in the process of finalizing a General Management Plan for the park which includes a visitors facility proposal. We understand also that these facilities and proposals have not been discussed at length with the community of people who may be interested in otherwise participating and feel that their business activities may be threatened by some of the decisions that have been made.
Today's hearing is timely also so that the matter can be reviewed and discussed before any irreversible decisions are made. We owe it to the public to ensure that the high standards of the National Park system are maintained in all actions affecting the Gettysburg National Military Park.
We appreciate the presence of our witnesses today and look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank you.
Mr. Miller hasn't walked in. He specifically requested that we conduct this oversight hearing and we were glad to accommodate that request and we would like to hear from him when he comes in.
Because of the scrutiny that we received on this particular issue, I am asking all those who will testify today if they would stand and be sworn in. If you have any question about who that is, Denis P. Galvin, the superintendent Dr. John Latschar, Robert Kinsley, Eileen Woodford, Walter L. Powell, Ted Streeter and Franklin R. Silbey. Would those folks please stand?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. HANSEN. Perjury is a rather sensitive issue around here right now. With that in mind, Mr. Galvin, always a pleasure to have you with us and I understand the superintendent, Dr. John Latschar, is with you. Would you two please come up?
Mr. GALVIN. I am the government witness, Mr. Chairman, and I will call on Mr. Latschar to answer any detailed local questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me explain to the folks who are going to testify, we have a rule in this Committee that you get five minutes. I am sure you have heard that from staff. Due to the importance of this particular issue, if you run over a little bit I am not going to bang the gavel but I would appreciate it if you would stay by your time.
Most of you will say that you maybe will abbreviate your entire testimony, which we appreciate, but your entire testimony will be submitted for the record and we will review your entire testimony.
So with that in mind, if you could stay within your five minutes, we would appreciate it.
You will see in front of Mr. Galvin there something you see every time you drive your car: red, yellow and green. It means the same as it does when you are going down a street. The green comes on, start talking. When the yellow comes on, wrap it up. And when the red comes on, then you hope that I am not a very mean traffic cop.
So with that in mind, Mr. Galvin, we will go with you. I see Mr. Souder is here from the Committee. We appreciate his presence.
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN A. LATSCHAR, SUPERINTENDENT, GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an unusually long prepared statement which I will submit for the record. I will summarize my statement and I think I will get close to five minutes.
I will try in my summary to respond particularly to the issues raised in the letter to the Secretary that invited us to this hearing and I highlight that letter, ''to enter into a partnership with the developer to construct a visitors facility on private land, questions concerning the type and location of the facility, the financial arrangements associated with the proposal, the impact of such a facility on the local community and the public process used by the NPS for this proposal.'' I will try to hit those points. They are elaborated at greater length in my prepared statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the National Park Service draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg and the proposal to develop a new park visitors center and museum. This proposal is to achieve these objectives in partnership with a nonprofit foundation and without construction cost to the taxpayer.
While the proposal had evolved in response to public comment, it is consistent with the objectives set forth in the related planning documents and is strongly supported by the National Park Service. Protection of the resources at Gettysburg has been the driving force behind this proposal and all related planning. We are committed to the protection of these resources.
Also of high priority is removal of incompatible development from within the boundary of the park. The National Tower is one of those developments and acquisition and removal of the tower is of paramount importance to this administration. The President has made this a priority in his 2000 budget request, along with the acquisition of another 93 acres of land within the boundary of the park where there is either incompatible development or plans for inappropriate development.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gettysburg is, of course, the nationally significant site of the Civil War battle of Gettysburg and the Soldiers National Cemetery. It is 5,900 acres of terrain upon which most of the battle occurred. There are 1,700 monuments and cannons placed by the battle survivors.
The park owns a collection of 38,000 artifacts and 350,000 printed texts. It includes the Cyclorama painting illustrating Pickett's Charge. Together the land, monuments, archival collection and the Cyclorama painting represent a remarkable resource that tell the complete and compelling story of this important time in American history.
The current visitors center and museum facilities are inadequate to meet resource conservation and preservation needs. Our visitors facility, sized for a visitation level of about 450,000 people a year, handle more than 1.2 million people. The facilities are located on some of the most significant land of battle, land that was central to the Battle of Gettysburg at the site of what has been called the high-water mark of the battle.
In December 1994 a local developer unilaterally approached the park and proposed a new Cyclorama center paired with a private IMAX theater. After 60 days of public and agency review, the NPS decided not to pursue that proposal, that unsolicited offer.
Between August 1995 and April 1996 the National Park Service prepared a draft development plan that enunciated four goals: protection of the park's collections and archives, preservation of the Cyclorama painting, provision of high quality interpretation and educational opportunities for park visitors, restoration of the high-water mark of the battle.
As part of this process, the NPS held a series of public workshops, a scoping meeting with a 30-day public review of the scoping documents and a 45-day public review of the draft DCP. Twelve public workshops, focus groups and advisory commission meetings were held by the National Park Service on these proposals.
After considering comments on this, the National Park Service issued a request for proposals to see if there were any private parties interested in a partnership with the National Park Service. The RFP solicited proposals to provide a new visitors center and museum facilities either on park land or on nonpark land in the vicinity of the park.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The RFP closed on May 16, 1997. We received six proposals. On November 8 the NPS announced the selection for negotiation of the proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Kinsley. This is a different proposal, a different entity and a different concept than in the December 1994 unsolicited proposal.
The proposal was to build on a privately owned 45-acre site within the boundaries of the park, located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues. The estimate for the facility and the acquisition of the land was $40.4 million. $22 million would be raised through grants and nonprofit fundraising. The balance of the cost that would be needed to cover land, soft costs and building costs for related facilities would be through a nonrecourse commercial loan.
As part of this process, the NPS sought comments on the proposal through a public review process. Between November 1997 and March 1998 we held six public workshops, three open houses and mailed a newsletter to 3,800 people to acquaint the public with the proposal selected for negotiation. During this review NPS received 3,200 sets of written comments from the public. Of those, more than 85 percent of the respondents favored the proposal. Twenty-nine percent were concerned with the level of commercial development.
Because the issue of appropriateness of the site was of concern to many, NPS undertook a comprehensive review of the site to determine what its Civil War history was. An artillery battery had operated from a ridge on the eastern edge of the property. No significant battle action had occurred on the balance of the tract.
A panel of independent Civil War historians reviewed NPS work and agreed that no significant activity occurred there. An archeological study of the site was undertaken. It found seven small prehistoric lithic scatters, three historic quarries and 73 Civil War artifacts. The Pennsylvania Historic and Musd1m Comlisriof as bnncurred that none of the locations are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The request for proposal has evolved over time through negotiations. The originally proposed IMAX theater has been dropped out of the proposal in favor of a conventional theater.
A General Management Plan and full EIS, given the controversy of the proposal, has been undertaken. The draft was available to the public. The goals of the GMP are similar to the goals of the DCP. Land and resources of Gettysburg are to be protected. Visitors understand and appreciate the significant events. Visitors enjoy a high-quality and accessible educational experience. And public and private entities understand the park's mission.
In August 1998 the plan was made available to the public. Four alternatives are contained in the plan. The plan proposes more than a visitors center. It proposes rehabilitation of large landscape elements, rehabilitation of major historic features and partnerships with local communities, particularly the Borough of Gettysburg.
An economic analysis has been prepared in conjunction with the General Management Plan. That analysis shows that expenditures in the communities related to the park are expected to increase by $23.7 million or more than 21 percent, with stable or increased visitor expenditures in each of the lodging, food, transportation, retail and amusement sectors of the local tourist economy.
The plan proposes to add downtown Gettysburg to the park's auto tour brochure, to expand the historic pathways, to provide a regular shuttle service believe the visitors center museum and downtown Gettysburg. Economic research suggests that the complete proposal will have beneficial tax effects.
As part of the process, the National Park Service held 30 public workshops, two oral hearings where testimony was recorded. More than 500 comments were received, 75 percent of which supported the National Park Service preferred alternative.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe the National Park Service has undertaken an exhaustive process of public involvement. Between the GMP and its predecessor Development Concept Plan process we have held 50 public meetings and have received and considered 4,600 public comments.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of public and agency concerns expressed before the issuance of the draft GMP, we have removed commercial facilities from the proposed visitors center, cut the size of the restaurant facility by more than half, turned it into a family cafeteria, decided that the theater would be operated by the park's nonprofit cooperating association or the foundation, with the proceeds from the operation to benefit the National Park Service's resource protection activities.
If the preferred alternative is adopted, we believe it would result in a very strong proposal, resulting in appropriate rehabilitation of the battlefield. The museum proposal would allow us to preserve the park's archives, collections and the colossal Cyclorama painting.
Gettysburg would be able to provide much improved interpretation of the causes, course and consequences of the Gettysburg campaign. Moreover, thanks to the generosity and entrepreneurial spirit of private sector partners, NPS could accomplish this at no cost to the taxpayers.
It is important to note that a final decision on the draft General Management Plan/EIS has not been made and that our final preferred alternative has not been selected. We currently are analyzing public comment received in the period of public review of the GMP.
I would like to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I have been involved in a number of partnership activities: right here on the Mall with the Washington Monument and the Target Corporation; in Philadelphia with the Pew Foundation where they are donating a considerable amount of money to build a regional visitors center in Independence National Historic Park. You heard a bill here on the Falls Church Visitors Center at Rocky Mountain, where there was private involvement outside the park.
I would say that the Kinsley proposal here and its spirit and his flexibility in the face of what has been an arduous process is admirable. He has been a most empathetic partner and I believe he is doing this in a spirit of public good and support of the objectives of Gettysburg National Military Park.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That concludes my summary of my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer the Subcommittee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Galvin.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico. I will recognize my colleagues for five minutes each for questions of Mr. Galvin.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some questions for the witness. First of all I would like to thank him for his testimony. I think it is very comprehensive and very complete testimony. It provides us with quite a bit of information.
I would like to know, Mr. Galvin, the NPS testimony today refers to negotiations with the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation. However, the foundation was not, according to our information, was not established until May 1998. Before and after the foundation was established, the NPS negotiations were directly with Mr. Kinsley; is that correct?
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct. That is correct. That evolved process has been subsequent to the request for proposals.
Obviously when you put out a request for proposals, the burden is more on the proposer. We have to set up a process that allows equal consideration of these proposals. So once you get the proposals, rate and rank them and pick what you think is the best, then you begin negotiations with the best proposer and the situation changes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And the information that we have about the time frame of when the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation was established, is that correct, May 1998?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. I am not entirely—I will supply that for the record. I am not exactly sure of the date.
——————
The Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation was established May 8, 1998.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The NPS has also previously stated that the construction of the visitors facility would not commence until the entire project cost has been raised by the foundation. Is this still the case?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, it is.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And what happens if the foundation is unable to raise the necessary funds?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, if the proposal is unsuccessful, the only irreversible—because of the answer to the question you just asked, if nothing is built, obviously there will be no damage to the park. I believe we will acquire the property on which the visitors center was proposed to be built. We believe the prospects are very good, however, for a successful fundraising drive here.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Has the NPS made a determination on the use on the project of Davis–Bacon wage rates?
Mr. GALVIN. No, we have not. As it stands right now, this is construction on private property. It is within the boundaries of the park but we have made no final determination on that issue.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Is there any special reason why you have not made a determination on that issue yet?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Well, it is unclear whether Davis–Bacon wage rates apply in this case. You would have a private entity building a building on private land, funded with donations and with a commercial loan. And so it is simply unclear. We would need a determination from the Department of Labor as to whether Davis–Bacon wages apply and it is just premature to get that determination.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. In August of 1998 a letter by the foundation's lawyers to the Cumberland Township asserted that the visitor facility is exempt from local zoning because it is a Federal building and would be used for government uses.
If that is the case, if it is a Federal building to be used for government uses, why is there any question of the applicability of the Davis–Bacon Act?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, ultimately it will become a government facility at the time when the loan is paid off. Actually it normally is the case that local zoning does not apply, although generally speaking, we comply with zoning where we can, certainly local codes.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. My question goes to the fact that because the foundation itself asserts that it is going to be a Federal building and it is going to be for government uses, why then can you argue at all that the Davis–Bacon Act would not apply?
Mr. GALVIN. Davis–Bacon wage rates may apply. We simply have not made that determination at this time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The revised cost estimates for the project assume that the Cyclorama, the electric map and the book store gift shop will cover a significant portion of the center's cost. Has the NPS done any cash flow analysis to verify this?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, we have. We have done an independent analysis of the cash pro formas and believe this will work.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And how is it that the net revenue after expenses is to more than double for the Cyclorama, the electric map and the book store gift shop?
Mr. GALVIN. The book store gift shop is the primary increased source of revenue here. The current book store is way undersized. There is a considerable demand for these publications and our independent consultant feels that with a larger book store, revenue will more than double.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The same thing with the Cyclorama and the electric map?
Mr. GALVIN. Some increase with the Cyclorama and electric map because of the increased attractiveness of the facility and the ability to handle more visitors.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you very much. I have no more questions for now.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. I am new to this Committee and relatively new to the issue. I am a history buff. I am interested in the Civil War. It has been a while since I have been in Gettysburg but it looks, just in casually trying to go through this stuff, that this is not uncommon as we try to change things around, national parks and national historic sites and the tension that develops between the community around it and the interests around it and the Park Service. And we have, in my opinion, a strong national interest in Gettysburg but as part of that, I also am concerned that the local communities have input into that, too, and we try to accommodate those two things simultaneously.
I am curious. My understanding is that, and I assume the second panel will get into this, as well, that the Borough of Gettysburg is against this, the merchant association is against it, the convention center is against it, the Gettysburg Battle Preservation Association is against it, along with other associations and many people.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you believe that is merely because it is moving from its current location to a different location farther than the downtown or are there other dynamics, as well?
Mr. GALVIN. The short answer to your question is yes, I believe it is because the facility is moving. I have reviewed the comments of the borough of Gettysburg.
One thing I would like to make clear here, there are five townships involved. The current facility is not in the Borough of Gettysburg. It is in Cumberland Township. It will move to a location in Cumberland Township.
So the location of the township in which the facility will move is not changing. The current facility is not in the Borough of Gettysburg. And I might add that those other boroughs have taken different positions on this proposal.
Mr. SOUDER. Have they been enthusiastic in their support?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. SOUDER. And how many people are involved in businesses in Cumberland Township, as opposed to the town of Gettysburg?
Mr. GALVIN. I don't know that. I would have to provide it for the record. I do have the number of businesses within a two-fifths mile of Gettysburg and it is a very significant number. There are something like 100 businesses within a two-fifths mile radius of the current development, and the move is about a mile.
Mr. SOUDER. So are you, in effect, saying that if you took the metro Gettysburg area, such as I know it is not like Pittsburgh, that the metro Gettysburg area, you are saying that the majority of people in that region would, in fact, support your position? Or are you saying just the people in Cumberland Township?
Mr. GALVIN. Within the Borough of Gettysburg, within the Borough of Gettysburg alone, the public comments we have received are 50/50.
Mr. SOUDER. In your statement you list a number of things. As somebody who likes to go around and visit national parks, historic sites, public and private, it is clear that many of the people who develop—whether they are appropriate or inappropriate from the historic perspective—sites around a park or a national site actually themselves very much love history, attract people who are there and ideally in these situations you should be allies. It doesn't always work that way.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And you have a series of things that you are proposing here to try to help accommodate things with the Borough of Gettysburg to try to make sure that tourists move when they come into the region. Are there additional proposals on the table? I mean Jeb Stewart is wandering around. Where was he? Are there other things the National Park Service could pick up that would strengthen this? Because many times people will go back to the Gettysburg area multiple times, not just once, because they won't necessarily do a four-day. They are going to want to eat. They are going to want to stay somewhere. And if you had, as part of a compromise, if there were additional satellite things, have any of those been considered?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes. In fact, the plan proposes several items. I mentioned them in my testimony: a shuttle downtown, an addition of a fourth day kind of tour that would include sites within Gettysburg.
Right now, before the plan is finished, we have moved into several locations, historic buildings within Gettysburg, and we are certainly willing to do more of that. We are anxious to cooperate with all the communities around all our parks.
Mr. SOUDER. You had the Wills House listed here and several others?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. SOUDER. Are there others that have been proposed that you, at this point, haven't taken?
Mr. GALVIN. We would consider any offer that enhances the interpretation and educational programs of the battlefield.
Mr. SOUDER. One other statement that I read here that I was curious about, it says, ''On the national level other concerns and questions were noted. Ensuring that the site was appropriate for development from the perspective of historical significance and finding mechanisms to protect Baltimore Pike from unsuitable development were important issues to many.''
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What precisely do you mean by ''unsuitable development''? Could this be a rival area where another group of motels, businesses develop? Are you looking to zone that? What does that statement mean?
Mr. GALVIN. Actually Mr. Kinsley has purchased some adjacent tracts to the tract that will be developed as the visitors center museum, which would preclude any commercial development along the Baltimore Pike there. Your statement implies exactly what we were worried about.
Mr. SOUDER. Have you looked at in a plan of even if you have controlled the immediate area, is there still area between there and downtown where, in effect, a new shopping area would develop, much like in Yosemite it pushed it out but it still popped up? Will an alternative development be created by this, as opposed to downtown Gettysburg?
Mr. GALVIN. We think this site really provides good insurance against inappropriate development. There is development very close to the existing site, so I think the site, the placement of the facility on the site, the fact that it is over the brow of the hill behind Cemetery Ridge, makes it a good site.
We have done viewshed studies because obviously I guess you could characterize our own development as inappropriate if it can be seen from some of the more sensitive places in the battlefield. And, in fact, none of the 19 interpretative tours and stops in the battlefield—you can't see this proposed development from any of them.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would like to ask the witness, can you tell me who owns Gettysburg National Park?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Who owns Gettysburg National Park?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALVIN. The people of this country.
Mr. JONES. Okay. So you do think that it is very important that the people that pay your salary and pay my salary are part of the process in making decisions that will impact on property that they own, right?
Mr. GALVIN. Indeed I do.
Mr. JONES. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason I bring this up is I represent the Third District of North Carolina and we have Cape Lookout National Park. Last year I had to introduce legislation to protect about 100 wild horses that had been traced back to the Spanish mustangs back in the 1600s. The Park Service fought me the whole way.
What disturbed me was not that they fought me but they fought the people of a county that had grown up with these horses that wanted to protect part of North Carolina's heritage and history.
And what bothers me, Mr. Chairman, as I started reading through this information and listening to the witness is that it always seems that the Park Service puts on a show by saying we are listening to the people but it doesn't matter what the people want to see happen.
Let me talk about another case in my district. It is the lighthouse at Cape Hatteras. We had a hearing last year. The people of that part of North Carolina wanted to see a barrier built in the ocean to protect the lighthouse from beach erosion and damage from the ocean for $4 million.
The Park Service decided it was better to move it 2,900 feet based on some scientific committee that the Park Service paid to give them an opinion.
My point there is that is going to cost the taxpayers $9.8 million, plus the fact, Mr. Chairman, an engineering group says they are not sure because of structural damage existing in this lighthouse that it can be moved safely.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My point goes back to this issue involving the Gettysburg Park is I am continually amazed and concerned with the attitude of the Park Service always seeming to know what is better than the people.
And that is what is wrong, in my opinion, with many of the Federal agencies. When I ran in 1994 it was to remind these agencies, just like a Member of Congress, who pays our salary. It is the people.
There are many times that we need to make a decision that the people will not like, but what little bit I know about this situation, based on some research on my part and watching some TV feature interviews about it, is that it seems that the people have been left out of this process.
And I am further disturbed, quite frankly, when I see that Congressman Goodling and Senator Specter asked the Park Service for additional time and the Park Service says to a senator and a Member of Congress that represents this area, ''We cannot extend the time. We've already given it 60 days,'' I believe it says, ''and that's long enough for public comment.''
I hope my point is that I do not know what it is going to take for the Park Service to fully understand that Members of Congress are elected by the people and we are the voice of the people in our district. And I think that is why there is such a crowd here today.
One other comment. I hope that you will gather from this, as we go down the road and other issues come about, that we cannot do enough to give the people the opportunity to voice their opinion on these issues on this property that they own. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I just wanted to ask something of the witness.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Galvin, you mentioned that they had made a cash flow analysis and other related financial documents regarding the proposal. Can we have copies of the analysis for our record?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes. We have the economic analysis. It is a public document. There are certain financial documents that are protected by the Privacy Act and we have discussed that with various Members of Congress. We would be happy to discuss it with you.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I would like to have copies for the record.
Mr. GALVIN. Those that are commonly available to the public, certainly we will provide everything.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin, we fully realize that nothing happens around this place without debate on both sides. That is just the great American way. But I think Mr. Souder brought up a point that really kind of bothers me, and he ticked off all of those organizations that are entirely against this thing.
That makes me wonder. Doesn't that give you some concern when he ticked off—I don't know if you have that list there handy but he listed all those. Boy, that is an overwhelming amount of people that are opposing this.
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. Nothing gets done around this town without a lot of controversy.
On balance, as I said in my statement, we have held 50 public meetings and have received 4,600 public comments.
Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, sir. What does a public meeting mean in your mind? Give me a definition of a public meeting. There have been public meetings with two people standing there and no one else had even heard of the thing.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are these meetings that were advertised and held in an auditorium and a whole bunch of folks got the opportunity to come and it was adequately circulated in the paper and the news and all that?
Mr. GALVIN. I believe in this instance there has been no lack of public attention to this issue. Mr. Jones mentioned that he had seen it on television. It has been on network television any number of times.
We have received 4,600 comments. Most of them are in favor of this proposal. The National Trust for Historic Preservation favors this proposal. The Organization of American Historians favors this proposal. Other townships in the vicinity favor this proposal.
So you can tick off a long list on either side, to be sure.
Mr. HANSEN. How much depth did you go into? How much did you lay out the proposal, line upon line, precept upon precept, or was this one of these things where you gave a general concept that the parameters were five miles apart? How far did you do this?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, this is the draft General Management Plan.
Mr. HANSEN. Was that available to all these folk?
Mr. GALVIN. Absolutely. It was on public comment for 60 days. It is 329 pages long and includes a full Environmental Impact Statement. Prior to that there was a Development Concept Plan and environmental assessment.
The responses to the request for proposals, absent private financial information, have been made available to the public. We will make anything available to the public that will enlighten the debate.
Mr. HANSEN. How many of those meetings were held prior to that being released?
Mr. GALVIN. All of them. Prior to it being released? Maybe as many as half.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. So half of them were done before the plan was released; is that right?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, the process includes some public meetings just for scoping, to develop the alternative. So even if you had started with the General Management Plan, there would be a certain number of public meetings before we put this together.
So there have been meetings throughout this process. As I say, the process has not lacked for public comment.
Mr. HANSEN. I have here how many were there and it says six were the only ones that were done after that was released and a whole bunch more were done before it was released. I won't haggle with you over the details but I think it is very important that people have the opportunity to know exactly what they are looking at before they have a voice in this thing.
Mr. GALVIN. We do, too.
Mr. HANSEN. You have to know what you are debating, just like we have to know what we are voting for.
Mr. GALVIN. We agree.
Mr. HANSEN. I have another question. Last time I was up there I took my wife and some of my children and we walked through the area and then we walked right into the town. I mean it was within walking distance. It was right there. Am I wrong? I mean you folks here can correct me, but we walked in. Now under this plan I guess we couldn't do that, if we accept this plan.
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, you would just walk into it from a different angle. This is close to town.
Mr. HANSEN. What is the distance?
Mr. GALVIN. We are moving the visitors center about a mile.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Now the first one was contiguous, if I recall.
Mr. GALVIN. About a half a mile.
Mr. HANSEN. So now if I want to do this I would really have to get in my car and drive; is that right?
Mr. GALVIN. It depends on whether you want to walk a half a mile. Within two-fifths of a mile of the current development there are 100 businesses. I think you could say with some confidence that when we move this, within a half a mile of the development there will be 100 businesses.
Mr. HANSEN. Half a mile?
Mr. GALVIN. Mm-hmm.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask you another thing. The gentleman from Puerto Rico brought up an interesting question. You brought up the idea that you are going to raise $20 million. This is voluntary money. People are going to volunteer this money. My staff tells me that figure is now closer to $27 million. Around here nobody haggles about $7 million except a few of us from the West.
But anyway, with that said, let me say this. I have been on this Committee for 19 years and I have never seen anybody make it. I always hear these pie-in-the-sky ideas of a park—oh boy, we are going to get this public money in and it is all going to come and we are going to get this much or that much. Then what happens is they turn around and they ask us for it.
I have sat here time after time saying gee, our intent was good, our motives were pure, but the money didn't come in. So gee, Congress, we know you have an endless supply of money, even though you are $5 trillion in debt. Why don't you come up with the bucks?
Now give me a straight answer. Do you really think they can raise this money
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GALVIN. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. Give me an example of the last time they raised the full amount.
Mr. GALVIN. Well, the biggest fundraising campaign we have been involved with, of course, was the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, which is about $300 million. Now that is extraordinary, to be sure. Mount Rushmore, about $10 million.
Mr. HANSEN. I think Mr. Iacocca did a heck of a job on that one. I will agree.
Mr. GALVIN. Washington Monument, $5 million. The regional visitors center in Philadelphia, $60 million. So we have some experience at this.
Now you are right. You are right in the sense that if this doesn't work, we have to go back to the drawing board. But in the meantime, no harm is going to be done to Gettysburg National Military Park.
Mr. HANSEN. But the vast majority of them, and I will agree with what you said but the vast majority of them, they come back here. But in your heart of hearts, you feel they can swing this one?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I do. I wouldn't be endorsing this proposal if I didn't.
Mr. HANSEN. How much more time have you got before you retire?
Mr. GALVIN. Well, sometimes it seems like it ought to be a very short amount of time.
Mr. HANSEN. People try to retire us every two years. Well, I am just curious because I would call you back if they didn't make it.
Anyway, any further questions from the Committee? I wish Mr. Miller was here. I know he had some questions for the Park Service.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Jones, Mr. Souder, Ranking Member, Mr. Romero-Barceló? I recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. There is a letter from Mr. Miller that was sent to the director of the National Park Service and he said that ''Based on the NPS request for proposals, your response regarding the release of the Kinsley proposal is just simply wrong. Please refer to the attachment D of the request for proposals whereby the NPS states that your failure to mark information contained in your proposal as secret or confidential, commercial and financial information will be treated by the NPS as evidence that the information is not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. And except for Mr. Kinsley's personal financial statement, no such markings appear on the Kinsley proposal. On that fact alone, you have no basis under FOIA, as you claim, to deny the information to the public.''
In other words, apparently information which is not privileged and is not confidential was denied to the public, financial information.
Mr. GALVIN. Well, we have been guided by our release of information to the public obviously by our solicitors. In our response to that letter we said, ''Under the applicable FOIA requirements, the fact that proprietary information is not marked as confidential does not, in and of itself, authorize the release of such information.''
It does not have to be marked as confidential on the proposal to be covered by the privacy considerations, I believe.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So that was the reason why the information was denied to the public?
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Also one of the other concerns that Mr. Miller has expressed is the fact of the information that the NPS is conveying to the public to the effect that the materials that were used in the NPS presentation to service clubs assert that Gettysburg NP is broke and that the entire NPS is bankrupt and that these documents further go on to blame Congress for not providing the NPS with funds.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Has the NPS ever asked Congress for funds for this?
Mr. GALVIN. Not for this particular development. It has been tested in our priority system and would not show up for some time.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So there has never been a request to Congress?
Mr. GALVIN. No.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So no funds have been denied to the NPS for this.
Mr. GALVIN. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And why were these statements then made?
Mr. GALVIN. I don't know that we have made statements that say we were broke or bankrupt. We certainly talked a lot up here about our backlog, had debates with the Appropriations Committee about the amount of the backlog. General Accounting Office has looked at it.
While there is not a precise figure, there is general agreement that it is in the billions of dollars and we have a list that is about $1 billion long that we would plan to try to ask Congress for over the next 10 years.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. We have a document that was submitted by the National Park Service, talking about the service clubs in the context of the visitors center and the museum proposal. In the second paragraph it specifically says as follows: ''The bad news is that we cannot currently carry out that mission of Gettysburg NMP because we are broke. It cannot be stated more simply or more honestly than that. On a broader scale, the entire NPS is bankrupt.''
Mr. GALVIN. Okay, I will acknowledge the accuracy of the quote. It is not quite the way I would put it but the fact is that if you ask for $40 million here, you are displacing $40 million worth of other needed public facilities.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And it seems to me if we can protect Gettysburg National Military Park without spending taxpayer dollars, that means that $40 million is going to go someplace in the system and do some good. And I don't see frankly why we wouldn't pursue it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Miller's issue is that if you need the money and you feel that you can do it better with public proposals, requests for donations, and you feel that that also would release the money for other things in the government, but why put the blame on Congress and say you are broke? I mean you don't have to mislead the public.
Mr. GALVIN. I have not done that.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. NPS did it. You are representing NPS here. That is why we want you to convey that back to the people at NPS.
Mr. GALVIN. I certainly will.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Galvin. I would like to point out to you that we have a number of questions that we are going to give you in written form. Would you respond to those?
Mr. GALVIN. Yes, I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin, if I may point out, no disrespect to you or others but we would really like to have an answer to them in kind of a short time.
Mr. GALVIN. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Many times we sit around and before long the whole issue is resolved and then we get the answers back. The Pentagon started that game and I notice others have all played that game. So if we could have those back tomorrow we would sure appreciate it.
Mr. GALVIN. We will get them back as quick as we can, Mr. Chairman.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I want to ask you one other thing. That is I would really appreciate it if you and the superintendent, members of the Park Service would stay here and listen to this other testimony.
Mr. GALVIN. We plan to do so.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We will excuse you and thank you for your testimony.
Our next and last panel is Mr. Robert Kinsley, Eileen Woodford, Walter L. Powell, Ted Streeter and Franklin R. Silbey. If they would all come forth, please.
We appreciate you folks being with us today and taking the time to come down and prepare testimony for us. You heard my instructions on the light. It is a very important issue. If you have to go over a couple of minutes, that is all right. Please don't go much more than that.
I would like to take you in the order that I read your names. Would that be all right with everybody? Mr. Kinsley, if you would like to go first, we will turn to you, sir. I would appreciate it if you would all pull that mike up close to you because the recorder has to pick it up and we have to pick it up. So if you are an old pilot, you know about kissing the mike. Bring it in close, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KINSLEY, MANAGING PARTNER, KINSLEY EQUITIES
Mr. KINSLEY. I know about that, sir.
I am pleased that the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands is holding this hearing to discuss the issues related to the proposed visitors center and museum at Gettysburg and I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss this very important issue.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just say that I vividly remember my first visit to Gettysburg on a seventh grade school history class trip. Standing in Devil's Den, I experienced the sense of awe that many who have visited that historic site experience. That experience remains with me today and is one of the motivating factors why I feel so strongly about creating a new visitors center and museum that honors and respects the heritage of Gettysburg.
When I first learned of this project it was from other developers who requested that I either purchase their lands or provide the venture capital necessary to develop their commercial plans. It was my feeling that the proposed sites for these plans were far from the battle action and also the Borough of Gettysburg and, quite frankly, were overshadowed by commercial lodging and conference activity. My belief was that the history of the Civil War should not be presented to our children and our grandchildren in that context.
With all that being said, I submitted our own proposal and it was selected by the Park Service. Upon selection, we then began negotiating, working together to create a plan for the visitors center that would be a model for privatization of such park projects.
Since we began our work together, there has been an outreach process that has encouraged input from the local community, historians, environmentalists and from all Americans. The Park Service has conducted many public meetings and public input has been an integral part in the evolution of this project.
In an effort to create a dialogue with the Gettysburg community, we have met with a committee of the Council of the Borough of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Adams County Gettysburg Chamber of Commerce and the area's retail merchants association. We have also participated in the borough's working committee which has led to the formation of a steering committee to develop an interpretive plan for the historic Borough of Gettysburg.
We hope to continue working with borough representatives as the museum and visitors center project progresses to ensure that the important history of the borough is told along with the history of the battle.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year we established the nonprofit Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation to undertake the visitors center project. The goals of the foundation parallel those of the Park Service: to preserve the artifacts and the archives, to restore and preserve the Cyclorama painting and to provide an expanded quality interpretative and educational experience for the visitor to Gettysburg.
Of utmost importance will be the restorations of Ziegler's Grove and the high-water mark, which are situated adjacent to the National Cemetery. We have done archeological and historic surveys which have determined that the proposed site for the museum, south of Hunt Avenue between the former Fantasyland site and Baltimore Pike, saw no significant battle action.
The site is located in an area out of the direct view shed of the high-water mark of the battle and Culp's Hill. This permits the building to be built in such a way that it does not intrude on the landscape. The building can be situated away from Kinzie's Knoll and the position of Rugg's Battery, which are at the northeastern edge of the site, thereby permitting these historic places to be appropriately interpreted. It is also a site in an area that can be protected and buffered from commercialism.
The Museum Foundation will be funded by grants from other foundations, corporate sponsorships, local businesses and contributions from the American people. We are confident that we will be able to raise the necessary capital to complete this project.
When the project has been fully funded and the debt retired, the property will be presented to the National Park Service as a gift to the American people. The Statue of Liberty Ellis Island project stands before us as a model for success, having received over $400 million in contributions from the American people.
We are hopeful that the new museum will increase overall visitorship to the Gettysburg area. We believe that the new center and the enhanced interpretative experience will spark the interest of students, seniors, families and all Americans. Such improved offerings shall bring more visitors to the area and will lengthen the duration of their stay.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Museum Foundation is committed to providing a more complete interpretation of the events that took place in and around Gettysburg in July of 1863. A well planned, coordinated transportation system is integral to that effort. A thoughtful approach to transportation will allow for a meaningful experience for the visitor, as well as increased economic benefit for the Borough of Gettysburg.
We look forward to building a strong and effective partnership among the foundation, the Park Service and the Borough of Gettysburg and the surrounding townships.
It is expected that a national fundraising campaign will be conducted by the foundation, simultaneously with the planning of the project. Construction will commence approximately two years after the definitive agreement with the Park Service is negotiated, but only after the necessary funds have been pledged or received.
All net proceeds realized by the foundation from operations after payment of debt service and the cost of operations will benefit the Park Service.
I believe that the Gettysburg National Military Park has a talented and committed team. The park, together with the foundation and the borough, can make this project a true success. Gettysburg and its history belong to all Americans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinsley and The Baltimore Pike Artillery Line pamphlet may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kinsley. We appreciate your statement.
I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Santorum be included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. We will now turn to Eileen Woodford of the NPCA.
STATEMENT OF EILEEN WOODFORD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. WOODFORD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Eileen Woodford and I am the Northeast Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association. I am pleased to present this summary testimony concerning the proposed museum complex and General Management Plan at Gettysburg National Military Park.
NPCA is America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An association of citizens protecting America's parks, NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has nearly 400,000 members. For the purposes of this oral testimony, we are speaking as well for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
NPCA strongly supports the draft General Management Plan and museum proposal for Gettysburg National Military Park. This innovative plan has the ability to return Gettysburg to being the world-class national park it so much deserves to be.
NPCA did not make this decision lightly to support the museum proposal. We understand only too well what profound changes the proposal and the General Management Plan will bring to the park, but those changes are necessary. We can no longer tolerate mold and mites eating away at the park's collection. We can no longer tolerate watching the paint chip off the Cyclorama painting. We can no longer tolerate visitors putting up with a second-rate experience. And we can no longer tolerate the intrusion of a wholly inadequate visitors center and a dysfunction Cyclorama building onto some of the most sacred ground in this country.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the outset of the planning process for the museum complex, NPCA stated that we supported the concept of using a public/private partnership to construct and manage this critically needed facility, but we would only support a proposal that passed the most stringent of tests and proved to uphold the highest of resource protection standards. Indeed, aspects of the initial museum facility, as proposed by Kinsley Equities, were highly unacceptable to us.
However, because of the dire situation at the park, it was necessary to explore a constructive outcome, and both the National Park Service and Kinsley were very open to public input for making the proposal acceptable. Towards that end we participated in nearly every single public meeting sponsored by the Park Service. We examined all public documents and provided written comments to NPS stating our specific concerns. We met with both supporters and opponents of the museum proposal to hear their points of view, including my two neighbors here at the table. We articulated strict new standards by which to judge the appropriateness of related activities. We subjected the museum proposal to extensive outside financial and economic analysis.
In the end, NPCA has concluded that the GMP, with the museum complex, is sound and in the very best interest of the historic resources and the American public.
I will now speak to specific aspects of the planning process, including the building program and location of the complex and the project's financial structure, to explain how NPCA came to its position of support.
Given the severity and extensiveness of the park's needs, a facility that combines a number of interrelated operations makes the most functional and financial sense. In addition, after a thorough examination of the Advisory Council's report on the history of the LeVan property, NPCA believes this site is suitable for the museum complex and that historically significant resources that exist there can be protected through careful siting of the new facility.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the price paid for the parcel, all of the proposers would have faced similar situations. Indeed, one proposer had identified the same tract as a potential development site.
A major concern for NPCA was that the project be financially viable but not violate the integrity of the park or compromise the stewardship role of the NPS over the historic resources. To give us this assurance, NPCA hired a private consultant with substantial expertise to review the project's economic impact methodology, which looked at overall visitation projections and revenue attendance estimates, the operating projections, meaning the cash flow of the project, and the project financing. Our consultant determined that the overall financial structure of the proposal appeared to be sound and reasonable.
Finally, I want to address the public planning process for both the DCP and the General Management Plan. Overall, NPCA found the public planning process to be exceptional. At public meetings for both the museum proposal and the General Management Plan, the park staff was willing to listen to a wide range of opinions and ideas. Additionally, the amount and detail of historical documentation presented in the GMP public meetings was unparalleled in my four years with NPCA.
The use of the documentation in the meetings brought the public into the process of framing the plan's alternatives and allowed for both the Park Service and the public to evaluate the environmental consequences of any proposed action as that proposal was being developed.
As a result, there is a very reasonable range of alternatives, all of which are grounded in sound and extensive analysis, as well as vetted by extensive and exhaustive public input.
In addition, I was greatly impressed with the park's specific effort to reach out to local governments, the business community, park partners and the institutional community through open morning working group meetings. The public process was nothing less than open and thorough.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, NPCA and the National Trust thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. We agree this highly innovative project, proposed at a place considered to be hallowed ground, requires the closest of scrutiny. NPS has presented us with a sound plan that has met all the tests put to it.
We enthusiastically support the adoption and implementation of the General Management Plan, including the museum. Indeed this is the very kind of plan that is needed to honor those who fought and fell at Gettysburg. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woodford may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Dr. Powell, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF WALTER L. POWELL, Ph.D, PRESIDENT, GETTYSBURG BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
Dr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
My name is Walter Powell and I am president of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, a locally based nonprofit established in 1959. Something of our organization's background and my background appears further in the written testimony and I will refer you to that.
Gentlemen, everyone here, 104 years ago today, today, President Grover Cleveland signed legislation creating Gettysburg National Park, a momentous occasion that followed several years of lobbying by Civil War veterans concerned about the future and preserving the land and historic features that constituted the battlefield.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Once again this morning we are at a defining moment in the history of that battlefield, but this time less from the threat of losing land but from losing an ideal; less from gaining an improved visitors center than a diminished sense of what is fitting and proper for a national shrine.
For despite what the National Park Service would lead us to believe, their proposal is less about resource protection than it is about establishing privatization of the park, less about saving relics than it is about saving the NPS bureaucracy the burden of asking the American public for funds. This is, in our view, in short, the selling of the battlefield to the highest bidder.
The NPS will counter that they and the developer have already listened to public concerns by reducing the amount of commercialism in the proposed facility. They will also counter that the current visitors center already has a book store that competes with other Gettysburg businesses. But what they are less eager for the public to understand is how much the commercial elements in the proposed new center will be larger than virtually anything else that currently exists in Gettysburg or the adjacent two-fifths miles alluded to and what an impact this will have on local businesses, despite the claims of a badly flawed economic analysis paid for by the National Park Service.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is for us as an organization the final straw when the agency charged with protecting sacred ground allows the money-lenders in the temple or, in a more modern context, a fast food restaurant in the middle of the cemetery, for it is to be built on battlefield, sacred ground.
And I repeat that here because the NPS has made much of the claim that no major battle action occurred here. As historian Richard Rollins has demonstrated in a letter recently submitted to this Committee, the area known as Kinzie's Knoll was an important Union artillery position and the artillery pieces here were instrumental in the repulse of the Confederate attack on a portion of Culp's Hill.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But even so, the debate over whether the action here was heavy or not is irrelevant. It is reductio ad adsurdam. Using the same logic, might we not also argue that a floating restaurant in view of the USS ARIZONA is okay because fewer men died in the harbor?
In the words of former NPS Director Roger Kennedy before the late House subcommittee chair Mike Synar at a hearing on the infamous Seminary Ridge railroad cut fiasco in 1994, and I paraphrase, all the land on the Gettysburg Battlefield is equally important. Well, is it or isn't it?
Our organization's concern, however, goes much further than the issue of commercialization. As I noted in previous testimony before the Senate subcommittee in February of 1998, we continue to wonder how much we can trust the actions and public statements by the national park regarding the particulars of this proposal and its real consequences and benefits.
As I noted then, the NPS has fostered a growing feeling is mistrust through a pattern of withholding information from the public and since last year, with the release of the General Management Plan, creating a document that allows the public effectively to consider the merits of no alternative but the Kinsley plan.
In fact, the draft GMP is a seriously flawed instrument because, like a true planning document, it should offer a range of alternatives for serious consideration, but does not do so and, in our view, violates the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act to require it to provide the public with a full range of alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, we are deeply troubled by these NPS actions, none the more so since the draft GMP was released. This park has had a history since 1991 of poor or controversial management decisions, especially the disastrous Seminary Ridge railroad cut land exchange and I would think Director Stanton and the park administration would bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. For in these troubled times, as this Committee well knows, perception is reality. It is unfortunate that the public and the press have had to resort to FOIA requests to get information for public disclosure.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It wouldn't be appropriate for us, however, to come to this hearing merely to criticize the park proposal. The needs that led them here have been legitimate and we know that overall Federal spending on parks has declined in recent years. But we believe the NPS has failed, for whatever reason, to present an accurate picture of its needs before Congress and has gone full speed ahead with the Kinsley initiative despite a growing chorus of protests from the Gettysburg community and from many in the Civil War preservation community.
In fact, we believe a solution is at hand. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe in watching the public reaction over the past year that solution, a compromise solution, affirms the need for improved facilities, supports many of the goals outlined in the General Management Plan, but affirms the need to explore some of the alternatives to building a new facility on the Hunt Avenue, LeVan or Kinsley tract.
That alternative plan might include demolition and rebuilding of the current visitors center and, if the National Tower is eventually acquired, the development of appropriately designed and screened facilities on ground that has already been compromised and is very close to the edge of the borough limits. All of this would keep businesses close to Steinwehr Avenue, maintain easy access to the National Cemetery and prevent developing battlefield land that, at the moment, is much as it was in 1863. These alternatives, we believe, still allow for a partnership of Federal, state and private funds and, more importantly, would be in stark contrast to the current proposal.
Mr. Chairman, in our letter to Superintendent Dr. John Latschar on October 16, 1998 commenting on the draft GMP, we urged him to ''give up his pride of authorship of this proposal and demonstrate true leadership by dropping this plan.''
In public statements since then he has refused to do so, telling us in so many words that if the plan is to be stopped, go to the Congress or to the courts. We accept Dr. Latschar's invitation and on behalf of all members of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, we urge this Committee to halt the current plan and seize an unparalleled opportunity to turn public anger and mistrust into a real partnership of the public, by the people, for the people, so that the Gettysburg Battlefield, precious to us all, will not perish from the earth.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell and letter from Richard Rollins may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Streeter, we will turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF TED STREETER, COUNCILMAN, BOROUGH OF GETTYSBURG
Mr. STREETER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Ted Streeter. I represent the Gettysburg Borough Council, who, in turn, represents the people of Gettysburg.
First and foremost, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear in front of you. We regard it as a reaffirmation of the democratic process and one which we have long looked for. The written testimony that I have submitted to you on behalf of the Gettysburg Council can basically be summarized in two sentences with regard to the economic situation in Gettysburg.
First of all, Gettysburg is a one-industry town. It is inextricably linked to tourism and that can never change. The second point is, obviously following from the first, that whatever happens to tourism in the battlefield area undoubtedly cannot help but affect the Gettysburg Borough.
We believe that the Kinsley plan does affect the Gettysburg Borough and that it will affect it adversely, to be polite.
You have in front of you in your packet a graphic which we submitted. It shows on the left the current location of the Gettysburg Visitors Center and on the right, the proposed location of the Gettysburg Visitors Center. As you alluded to, Mr. Hansen, the current Gettysburg center is located just across the street from the Steinwehr Avenue business district, within two-fifths of a mile of over 100 businesses. There is adequate parking currently in the visitors center for people who want to park there for long periods of time, thus relieving parking congestion on Steinwehr Avenue and visit the shops there.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Movement of the visitors center, I believe it will be closer to nine-tenths of a mile from the current commercial zone, will have two effects, two major effects. First of all, it will physically isolate the visitors center from the Steinwehr Avenue business district. Pedestrian access will not be as affordable as it was before. Indeed, it will be quite a hike, contrary to, I think, what was previously said.
Secondly, it will destroy the parking lot when the current visitors center is razed, which will eliminate the ability to park and visit the Steinwehr Avenue business district.
The second effect will be economic isolation of our Steinwehr Avenue business district. The new visitors center is what has been called a one-stop shopping mall and I think that is a very accurate description. It is going to contain a theater. It is going to contain a museum. It is going to contain a retail outlet. It is going to contain a restaurant of some sort. It is going to contain guide facilities and tour bus facilities.
And with regard to the restaurant, Mr. Chairman, we are told by economic analysis done by the park that the restaurant will be capable of serving 615,000 meals a year. Now, I know nothing about the restaurant business but the immediate thing that pops into my mind is Hershey Park, which is the closest facility and would seem to have a restaurant comparable to that.
The combination of these two factors—the economic isolation and the physical isolation—can lead the average tourist and his family to drive to the current visitors center, get out of their car or bus, go into the visitors center, visit the museum, see the film, hire a guide or a tour bus, take a tour, come back, purchase something at the retail center, have a bite to eat at the cafeteria and leave for any other major attraction in the area without ever having to visit the Steinwehr business area.
Consequently, this potentially has a devastating effect on the people who have worked very, very hard in those businesses for the past 20 some years to build them, in accordance with earlier park policy which encouraged that sort of thing. The park, in its infinite wisdom, has characterized these people as greedy, short-sighted, avaricious, whatever, in order to discredit their credibility, but I am going to spend a couple of minutes and tell you about a couple of them.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the most greedy of these people is Dick Peterson. He and his wife Pauleen coincidentally are two of the nicest people that the Lord ever put on the earth. They have worked for 20 years to build what they have. It is a nice business. It is a good addition to the Steinwehr Avenue business district. During the summer they hire over 12 people to do their theater presentations, man their book store and what have you. It is accessible now by foot traffic from the current visitors center and by people who park in the lot. Elimination of that visitors center and its lot will virtually eliminate the access that these people have.
I will tell you about Emmett Patterson. Emmett is an easy target. Emmett runs the local McDonald's. McDonald's is a megacorp. It is greedy.
Emmett Patterson employs three people full-time and over 80 kids, Gettysburg kids, during the summer, part-time, kids working for high school money. If the visitors center is moved, he is going to be forced into unfair competition with his own government, Mr. Chairman, and that is going to result in obviously a loss of jobs, a loss of jobs to these kids and the community.
Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about the economics of greed. I am not talking about the economics of avarice. I am talking about the economics of concern and indeed the economics of survival. These people have a right to survive. They have a right to prosper in their businesses and they do not need to be driven out by unfair competition.
Now I might close by saying that the situation was obviously not brought about by the Park Service's offer of cooperation with the borough. Were that so, we wouldn't be here today. Nor would you have been burdened for the past year with the problems that you are burdened with.
Nor is it a situation that has been brought about by the Park Service coming in and saying, ''We know what is best for you.''
No, sir, the situation has been brought to a head the way it is now because the Park Service has said to the borough, ''We don't care about you. We are going to pursue our own dreams. We are going to pursue our own agenda. We are going to build this monument to ourselves and what happens to you is your tough luck.''
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We ask only for meaningful participation. The gentleman from North Carolina hit it right on the head. We ask only for meaningful participation in the process. We have not had it to date.
The GMP that is the result of this is a prototype document. It will affect the National Park Service and the American people for the next 25 to 50 years. Let us take the time. Let us do it right. Let us get people, the people who own the park, to participate. And to that end, we are coming to you, sir, to help us do it. I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Streeter may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Streeter.
Our last witness is Mr. Silbey.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN R. SILBEY, PRESIDENT, FRANKLIN SILBEY & ASSOCIATES
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am very grateful for this oversight hearing.
For 17 years I ran investigations and oversight subcommittees on Capitol Hill, House and Senate, for both parties, and I represent no economic interest of any kind. I am not going to engage in personalities or questions of character.
I learned when I worked in oversight that the real truth often lies behind the curtain, and that the most important thing in oversight is to look behind that curtain and ask questions about what really is going on. To that effect, I have done my own research. My information has been shared with Majority and Minority staff, who have done a marvelous job and have rendered every fair courtesy. I believe the public has been prevented from hearing much information that is germane, vital, factual that goes to the heart of this issue that have never seen light of day before.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is all about money. This has nothing to do with patriotism.
Your colleagues just spoke about the arrogance of the Park Service. It has never been better exhibited than in this instance. What you have here is a group of senior public officials who have decided on a plan to give a commercial developer a virtual monopoly on the dollars that 2 million tourists annually bring to Gettysburg. They decided before hand on that plan. They did not tell Congress a thing about it. They have methodically decided to circumvent the congressional authorization, appropriation and oversight process through the so-called public/private concept, and thus far they have been successful.
They have never considered any other alternative, never told Congress they had a problem. They plunged right ahead and, while denying access to all this vital information, came up with a commercial plan they kept secret for quite a while. The commercial development plan was finalized May 9, 1997. It was finally released July 23, 1998.
Any and all public comment meetings that took place they speak about were largely meaningless. The NPS is very quick and voluble to speak about all kinds of open discussions. Those open discussions were useless because the public was denied access to all the basic information on which they were basing decisions. They were denied access to a development document that says at the top, ''a small mall.''
This'' small mall'' will have an enormous commercial footprint—6,000 square feet of restaurant, 6,000 square feet of retail store, largest in the county, a large bus terminal complete with busses and battlefield guides. The guides made it a condition of agreeing to participate that they would have a presence on each of these tourist busses.
This is commercialization by any other name. Yet in the hearing held last February before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Galvin of NPS said, ''There will be no commercialization of the park.'' How that jibes with these retail operations and their immense volume, somebody who is far more knowledgeable than I will have to explain.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rich Rollins, a historian who met with two of park historians, Mr. Hartwig and Miss Harrison, told them, ''Don't put this thing where Kinzie's Battery was.'' Yet he was sent a letter that said Kinzies Battery played a significant role in the second day's battle.
We have an advisory commission acting as a rubber stamp for the park. We are told there is a sunshine law requiring all advisory committee meetings to be open to the public. I have a document here dated July 12, 1996, in which, ''As before, we will also meet at 2 p.m. in the visitors center conference room for our premeeting caucus.'' This is the written policy of the superintendent of the park.
There has been a recent archeological search of the LeVan site. They found relics. A Freedom of Information Act request has been sent. We can't get at what they found nor even seen those relics.
I had the privilege of working for John Moss, author of the Freedom of Information Act. I know that law reasonably well and have access to attorneys who wrote it. At one point opponents had barraged the park with Freedom of Information Act requests, seeking basic data. NPS actually started denying requests for information on the basis of national security. They cited a Federal regulation that allegedly prevented their compliance with FOIA requests.
What was the real reason? Congress, in its wisdom, enacted an exception to FOIA to protect sensitive national security data submitted by Pentagon contractors. This was the fig leaf they sought to shelter behind and use as grounds for denial of Freedom of Information Act requests.
Then there is the relic argument. NPS gives dog and pony shows in the form of tours of the basement of the visitors center, claiming priceless relics are being ruined. Yet we have a man who is one of the greatest Civil War relic experts in the country, George Lower, saying it absolutely isn't so. What NPS has also chosen not to reveal to the public is that Eastern National Monument Association chose to make them an offer they have ignored and kept from the public. It is to build a climate-controlled, year-round storage facility to store these so-called deteriorating relics.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is much more, but my time is limited. At this point I welcome many more questions from the Committee about what is a planned desecration of one of the most unique places in America.
I have more documentation germane to what this Committee is seeking to find out. I wish to close with a quotation from General Joshua Chamberlain, hero of the fight on Little Pound Gap, from October, 1889. ''In great deeds, something abides. On great fields, something stays. Forms change and pass. Bodies disappear but spirits linger to consecrate ground for the vision. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream: and lo! The shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls.''
Imagine what that man and his comrades of both sides would say about putting this kind of massive commercial facility half a mile from where Lincoln gave his speech and where 5,000 Americans, 3,500 from the battle and 1,500 from other wars, lie buried.
I do not understand for the life of me how anybody can come forward and argue rationally, patriotically, for doing this kind of thing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Silbey may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony. There are about a dozen hearings going on around here right now, so Mr. Romero-Barceló had to go to one that had some votes on, as some of the other members, and I have the same problem. I guess I will miss some of them.
Mr. Kinsley, I understand that you established the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum in May of 1998; is that correct?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINSLEY. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. How many officers are there in the foundation?
Mr. KINSLEY. We have three interim officers before the full board is selected and it is myself, my chief financial officer and Barbara Sardella.
Mr. HANSEN. Would you give us the names of those, if you would, please? Could you submit the names of your officers of your company?
Mr. KINSLEY. We would be happy to.
Mr. HANSEN. We would appreciate that if you would.
How will your commercial loan be collateralized?
Mr. KINSLEY. Well, I think what you need to know is that this is a $39 million project in which we will raise about $27 million. About $12 to $13 million will be financed by financial institutions. Those loans will be able to be collateralized by the leases that we will have with Eastern National, with the theater and with any other tenants that we will get. There would be no lien on Park Service property. There may be a mortgage on the building, but it would permit operations of the Park Service in the event of a foreclosure through a non-disturbance agreement.
Mr. HANSEN. I assume that you would be expecting to do the construction on this, your construction company. Is that correct?
Mr. KINSLEY. It would be an honor if I would be selected, but I may not be selected. What you have to realize is that in a construction project of this type, about 90 percent of the project is subcontracted out. There will be probably 20 or 30 specialty contractors used on this job and those construction contracts can be awarded by the foundation directly to those subcontractors based on scope and price and ability to perform exceptional work.
Mr. HANSEN. You feel that as a general, it would be a bidding process to see who would be the general contractor on this? Is that how you would look at it?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KINSLEY. It is very possible that you will not have a general contractor. You will have different trades contractors and the construction project could be managed and probably would be managed under a construction management contract with a construction manager and all the financial records and books would be open for scrutiny and all monies would be handled by the foundation.
Mr. HANSEN. I would think that would be the way to do it but it contradicts the hearing that was held in the Senate, not to make a big deal out of that, but in that one Senator Bumpers asked the question of Mr. Galvin: ''Let me just start off by asking you if Mr. Kinsley has a contracting firm.'' Mr. Galvin: ''Yes, I believe he does.'' Senator Bumpers: ''Is he a contractor?'' Mr. Galvin: ''Yes.'' Senator Bumpers: ''It is my understanding that he would do the building. In other words, once you accept him, under the request for proposals which you have already issued, once you accept him as the contractor, this will not be put out for public bids. He will build it himself; is that correct?'' Mr. Galvin: ''That would be my presumption.''
Mr. KINSLEY. Is that a statement or a question?
Mr. HANSEN. Pardon me, sir?
Mr. KINSLEY. Is that a statement or a question?
Mr. HANSEN. So far it is a statement.
Mr. KINSLEY. Okay.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Galvin: ''That would be my presumption, or a contractor of his choice would do the construction.''
I don't know if that really squares, and I'm not trying to take on former Senator Bumpers or yourself or Mr. Galvin, but that doesn't square with the way that we normally do bids. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. KINSLEY. Well, I think we would not undertake a ''public bid,'' but this would be a process much like a public bid process. Competitive bids would be obtained from the different trade contractors demonstrating they are capable of performing quality work, but this is a project that is being financed by a foundation. We will seek out qualified contractors to do the specialty work and the work that needs to be done on this.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that you need to know that I own companies that do better than $200 million a year, have revenues and operate profitably, and I do not need to do this job. Nor do I need to make a profit.
As an American citizen, I am willing and capable of doing this project and less than cover my overhead. And I may not be selected, but it certainly would be an honor for me to do it. I have spent countless hours in the last two and a half years working on this project and it would be an honor to build it, but I may not build it.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Let us accept the premise that you get the job through some bidding process and Kinsley Construction is the general. Of course you would, as you pointed out earlier, many, many subcontractors would be involved.
Would you anticipate starting the job predicated on amount of money you think that you will get from pledges or would you wait until the pledges were there, so the money is in the bank, so to speak?
Mr. KINSLEY. I would think that as a prudent businessman, we would wait until the money is in the bank, unless we have pledges that are signed and collateralized from credit-worthy organizations.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me just switch a minute. I would like to ask Eileen Woodford a question. Your testimony states that ''It is imperative to NPCA to ensure that the proposal was acceptable by meeting only the highest standards.''
Do you folks consider commercialization and construction on undisturbed ground within the park boundary as meeting your highest standards?
Ms. WOODFORD. Let us take it in two pieces. One is the ground itself. We were satisfied—that was one of our initial concerns about the location, that this parcel, that it not be interfering with historic resources that may be there.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We were satisfied with the advisory commission's report on its peer review, its panel of historians, that the proposed museum complex could be placed on this site without disturbing any of the historic resources.
Secondly, in terms of the related activities, in our Senate testimony you would read that we set up a number of criteria by which we would judge the appropriateness of all the activities that would be part of the proposal and those criteria include that they had to be necessary and appropriate, they had to affirmatively support the mission and purpose of the park, and they had to be minimum necessary to make the operation financially viable.
That made a number of the initial activities proposed under the initial proposal that Mr. Kinsley put out unacceptable to us and, after much discussion, those activities were reduced or eliminated.
And using those same criteria and applying them against the activities that were presented in the draft General Management Plan, we feel comfortable that these activities support the mission and purpose and goals of the park.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. SILBEY. I think it is fascinating to realize that the official, long-standing policy of this lady's organization is to oppose commercialization within national parks, and to encourage such commercialization only outside such parks. This is a dramatic departure from their policy.
I offer here a quote from this lady. This is from an article from Civil War News of April, 1998. ''Eileen Woodford, Northeast Regional Director, National Parks and Conservation Association, submitted testimony. Removal of the intrusive National Tower must be an integral element of any final plan.''
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Tower does not come down as a result of the Kinsley proposal. It stays. The Park Service was in negotiation with the tower's owner four years ago when the present superintendent came in. He walked away from that negotiation, giving no explanation, according to the lawyer for the tower.
What you really have is a Kinsley mall to be located right next to the tower, creating a huge commercial footprint, reviving the tower's ailing business, doubling its asking price and flying in the face of Miss Woodford's quote, I believe.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you want to respond?
Ms. WOODFORD. Please. NPCA realizes that there are needed activities that the Park Service cannot provide within national parks. That is why we have a concessions law and that is why we have worked to reform that concessions law which, as you know, was passed the last congressional session.
Commercial activities or any kind of activities such as commercial activities are not necessarily inappropriate for national parks. We do need some of them. The Park Service cannot provide them all.
What we did was go beyond the concessions law, which only states necessary and appropriate and we added two additional criteria. One was that it affirmatively support the mission and purpose of the park. Unrelated activities were unacceptable. All the activities proposed under this complex would be supportive of the mission and purpose of the park.
Mr. HANSEN. We don't want to pick on NPCA. We know they do some very wonderful things for the park.
Ms. WOODFORD. I am sorry; I can't hear you.
Mr. HANSEN. Please don't get us wrong. We are not picking on you in any way. We know you do some very good things for the Park Service and for our national parks and we appreciate that, but I am always curious where you folks are coming from on things because you do have considerable clout.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You know, in 1990 Gettysburg National Park boundary legislation addressed and set the boundaries of the park with the purpose to preserve, conserve and protect the grounds of the parks and other important sites. This legislation resulted in boundaries being set that included private land, including the LeVan tract, which I guess is kind of at issue here, that was deemed to have historic significance within the park.
If you go back and read that, and I don't understand it. I have stumbled around the park two or three times. I think it is wonderful, but I don't understand the intricacies that you folks have, but apparently there is something pretty sacred about that.
In fact, subsequent actions to the passage of this legislation reinforce the intent for the Park Service to preserve and protect the lands within those boundaries.
Now, if I got this right, and I may not have I stand to be corrected—probably everybody in this room knows more about it than I do—isn't this the area that we are talking about? Dr. Powell, do you want to respond to that?
Dr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues certainly in the boundaries study was more broadly defining what was significant land based on the original 1895 enabling legislation and to include areas that, because of subsequent development pressures, needed to be protected.
The issue here critically is, as I argue in our testimony, not the issue of whether one piece of ground is more significant than another. There is the inherent problem here of the National Park Service claiming, for example, in 1991 that seven acres of Seminary Ridge ''lacked the criteria that determined National Register eligibility,'' yet the property was already within the National Register and already within the park boundary.
The ludicrousness of that sort of assertion is the same ludicrousness of the assertion by the SHPO about the National Register eligibility of the LeVan tract. It is already within the national military park boundaries, already within the National Register boundaries. So it is not a question of whether or not it is significant but whether or not the project on it should be developed.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kinsley, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. KINSLEY. I think one of the appropriate reasons for this is that I guess it could be a debate whether one piece of ground is more hallowed than the other piece of ground. And we think, and studies have found, that our piece, the LeVan tract, is less hallowed, but it is also close enough to the park that it can be protected. Land on three sides of the tract are now already owned by the Park Service. We have purchased 45 acres from the LeVan family. We will be using, I would think, approximately 15 acres of that and the rest of it will be preserved in the condition that it is today.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Streeter, one thing that bothers me about your testimony is you sit on the council?
Mr. STREETER. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. And if I am hearing you right, you are somewhat offended that the council really was kind of ignored, not really listened to carefully. Did they accept anything that you folks said or did they just kind of pass you off as a wayward child?
Mr. STREETER. When the initial council position was issued in March of this particular year, we opposed the Kinsley proposal as it was then proposed and we have always stated that our opposition to it was conditional.
In response to that, in all fairness, the proposal was altered, as I recall correctly, to eliminate the IMAX theater and to eliminate the linen tablecloth, as it was called, restaurant.
I personally, and I think members of the council and people we represent, regard that as a negotiations ploy. One always opens negotiations asking for more than he can get and then, when you fall back and ask for what you really want, it seems reasonable.
In reality, it would seem that an IMAX theater in the first place would be of no use in that particular area, although you could show one film, but with a conventional theater you could show many films at different times of the day.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you had a linen tablecloth restaurant, you may get a little bit of service out of it but the average visitor who visits that facility would probably not use it.
So to answer your question, I think, sir, yes, some concessions were made on the part of the developer but the concessions that we are asking for, sir, are to be listened to, to have the borough taken into consideration with regard to the Steinwehr Avenue district, which provides a very substantial portion of the borough's income.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Silbey, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. SILBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think a little history might be a bit helpful here. The park is under siege. In 1989-1990, the park, for some reason nobody understands yet, gave Gettysburg College seven and a half acres of land. They proceeded to assure concerned people that everything was going to be just fine. Gettysburg college proceeded to destroy a unique historical landscape. They brought in bulldozers on Christmas Day and New Year's Day, ravaging a critical part of the first day's battlefield.
That led to Congressman Mike Synar's oversight hearing. I brought Mr. Synar and his subcommittee staff up there to take a look. He later held an oversight hearing. It was a masterful oversight hearing. He had Roger Kennedy, head of the NPS, as a witness. Kennedy and a group of his people all agreed they had made a terrible mistake, promising to make good on the damage and to hold the College to account.
They got rid of the then superintendent, brought in the present one. Nothing was ever done. The promises wre broken. If you go there and view that railroad cut, guides will be shown there was serious battle action. At the hearing by Synar, NPS and the College maintained there was little battle action. Thet were not telling the truth. The railroad cut remains today, a desecrated historical landscape and a national disgrace. If the veterans could come back they would have a seizure.
Now we have the proposed Kinsley Mall. Mr. Kinsley paid $61,000 an acre for land that ordinarily sells for $2,000 an acre, thus establishing a new price level, an out-of-reach asking price for any other piece of land anybody wants to buy. They will never get it. Existing preservation organizations are not going to be able to afford such prices. They are going to have to come to Congress.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again we hear the same argument. Nothing happened on the site. Much ado over nothing. After the tower and the railroad cut, and now this, what you are looking at is the steady erosion of the integrity of the crown jewel of American batttlefield parks.
What will NPS come up with next? A tasteful hot dog stand on the ARIZONA or a tasteful movie theater outside the entrance to the American cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach?
This is nothing more than a commercial development in the middle of the most hallowed place of our Civil War. This is what it all boils down to. If the Subcommittee demonstrates all the unexpurgated documentation we still have yet to be able to access, I believe the Subcommittee will find there is yet another story to be told.
There is now an Adams County criminal investigation into an application for Federal highway funds by an organization enjoying uniquely privileged status in access to the park for fundraising purposes. They have been highly supportive of this project and have generated much of the mail the deputy NPS director quoted when he said there was unanimous public support.
I thank you for allowing me to comment.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
You will notice from the clock that we have just a few minutes before high noon and we are going to lose this room. So I do want to thank all of you for your testimony. Obviously there are some very strong feelings in this thing, no question about it, but let me say this.
Years ago I was speaker of the house in my home state and we were so ticked off at the Federal Government that every 11 Western states did something and we called it the Sagebrush Rebellion. If you're old enough to remember that, we were ticked off that the Federal Government just came on and told us how to run our ground and our land and everything and we felt we are smart enough to do it ourselves.
I then came to Congress and I remember in January of 1981 being in the White House with then-President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of Interior Jim Watt, Secretary of Agriculture John Block. And the President was lecturing these two people and he said this. He said, ''You know why there is a Sagebrush Rebellion?'' He said, ''It is because you guys,'' i.e. Ag and Interior, ''go into the areas with the badge on and a high-handed attitude saying, 'This is the way we are going to do it and we don't care what you think.' '' He said, ''We are going to adopt the policy of the good neighbor.'' He said, ''I want you to keep that on your desks. We are good neighbors. We don't go in and push people around. We talk to them. We reason with them. We work it out with mutual agreement.'' And he quoted the Book of Isaiah: ''Come let us reason together.''
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No disrespect to this administration but I think we are somewhat back to the Jimmy Carter days on some of these things, and no disrespect to the Park Service but we lecture them ad nauseam on the idea that really we are all American citizens and sometimes we can sit down and resolve our differences if people will talk to one another, try to keep the inflammatory thing down and reason it out.
So with that said, this Committee has the obligation as an oversight committee of the National Park Service to look in detail at the remarks today and I am going to ask each one of you if you would, please, I am going to submit to you a pile of questions. Please answer them as honestly as you can, straightforward. We are not going to take sides right now and say one of you is right and one of you is wrong, but we really want to get this information because I understand many of the members of this Committee have some very strong feelings on this.
Members of the Congress, both in the Senate and the House, have very strong and opposing feelings on this and we would like to have the opportunity to know what action we should take from that point.
I appreciate your abiding by that little bit of history that I just laid on you. I do appreciate each and every one of you being here and the excellent testimony we have had today and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
LETTERS TO HON. JAMES V. HANSEN
Hon. JAMES V. HANSEN,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
and Public Lands,
O'Neill Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Hansen:
I am writing in connection with your forthcoming subcommittee hearing regarding the General Management Plan proposed by the National Park Service for implementation at the Gettysburg National Military Park. I wish to express my concern over the planned Visitors Center and to provide some insight into the artifacts which the NPS has now on display and in storage.
I am a lifelong resident of Gettysburg who for nearly thirty years bought and sold Civil War artifacts as The Gettysburg Sutler. Because of my expertise I appraised some of the country's most famous Civil War collections, such as that of the Dubois family of Atlanta, GA. I also performed some appraisal work for the Gettysburg artifacts and devoted several hundred hours of volunteer work to catalogue and display the Rosensteel collectton. I am in addition the founder of the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg and was its first president until I resigned in protest against the Friends' financial policies, specifically its raising of funds solely to promote growth of the organization rather than to enhance the park.
It is my belief that there are a number of people connected with the Gettysburg park, both in and out of the National Park Service, who have a far greater interest in pursuing their own agendas and in enhancing their resumes than they do in promoting the well being of this park. I also believe that a new Visitors Center would be a vast improvement to this national treasure and, although skeptical at this point, am willing to entertain the concept of public-private partnership. However, I find it unconscionable that advocates of what is known as the Kinsley proposal wish to destroy not only the last piece of undeveloped land on the battlefield, but one which lies directly in the center of the staging area for the entire Union defense during the battle.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The assertion of the National Park Service that the new Visitors Center. will display many more artifacts which now can only be stored is, in my opinion, seriously misleading. The best example of every weapon in the Rosensteel collection is now on display as well as all the other items of greatest importance to both armies at Gettysburg. Those weapons not now on display are for the most part good only for study and probably never would be anywhere but in storage. It is, I believe, also misleading for anyone to refer to the huge number of relics in storage without specifying that they are overwhelmingly bullets, cannon projectiles and shrapnel, which not only will not deteriorate but which are also abundantly displayed. There are in storage some items of local historical interest, i.e., furniture, photographs, documents and some uniform items, which would no doubt add to the display, but neither they nor any other items in the collection are deteriorating at a rate that necessitates rushing this project to the extent we are told it must be rushed. No relic currently in storage is undergoing undue deterioration. Both the citizens of Gettysburg and the American people have too often been left with the legacy of ineptness exhibited by NPS administrators. I have known a number of them and believe them to have meant well, but even their best intentions resulted in blunders that we must all now live with. I refer, among other things, to the Cyclorama which NPS now wants to remove, the National Tower which must now be bought and removed, and the railroad cut which like the LeVan (Visitors Center) property, was dismissed as having little historical value, but was later admitted by then NPS Director, Roger Kennedy, to have been a huge blunder. Similarly, the deer were protected for years against any form of harvest by the neighbors of the park, but are now being slaughtered by the NPS for the well being of the park's farming policies. The people of this community who care deeply about Gettysburg as well as many subordinate NPS employees fought to prevent these NPS actions; yet, using the pretense of ''for the good of the resource,'' NPS administrators drove on, unresponsive to the voice of the people.
Choosing the right course of action in this matter will not be easy, but rushing the process with no thought to alternative ideas will serve only to add another blunder to the already overly long list. There are many good and caring people on both sides of the issue and plenty of time to listen to all points of view so that we can arrive at a final product of which we can all be proud. Above all, let's not destroy this piece of land within the boundary established by Congress and President Bush. Let us protect it from becoming another well intentioned blunder for future generations to correct.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Hansen, your committee has the opportunity, and possibly the only remaining opportunity, to slow down this process. I have believed for a long time that if the GMP/Kinsley proposal is a good idea it will always remain so, but if it is another bad idea acted upon rashly, we will live with it for a long, long time.
I thank you for your interest in this piece of ground which I and a great many other people care about deeply. We need time to be heard and to develop a real plan which not only the citizens of Gettysburg, but all Americans, can be proud of.
I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you. Thank you again,
Sincerely,
| Randal J. Holderfield, |
| San Jose, California 95112 |
The Honorable JAMES HANSEN,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands
814 O'Neill House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515-6201
Re: February 11, 1999 Hearing on Gettysburg National Military Park
Dear Chairman Hansen:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the Gettysburg National Military Park's General Management Plan, in particular, the construction of a new visitor's center on battlefield land. My opposition stems from both the contents of the actual plan and the procedure by which the plan has been developed and promoted. Above all, my opposition is to any commercial development on any part of a battlefield for which men fought and either gave or risked giving their lives for their country.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, let me address the procedure by which this plan was arrived at. I do not have the space or time to discuss this flawed process in it's earlier stages in detail, but I would like to make one point on this issue. If one reads the GMP and the four proposals contained therein, one comes away with really only two alternatives being offered by the GNMP: either let the battlefield deteriorate or build a new visitor's center. No other options were given for the public to comment upon. Thc choices are either accept the unilateral decision of the powers that be at the National Park Service that a new visitor's center be built or let the battlefield fall apart. In other words, the deck is stacked and always has been. I do not see that any other alternatives were ever examined.
What were the reasons given for the need for a new visitor's center? I believe the primarily ones described by the GNMP as critical and requiring urgent action were to provide adequate storage facilities for artifacts and to preserve the mural currently housed in the Cyclorama building. With regard to the artifacts, I can understand the concern for storage, but in my inquiries into this issue, I have never found a report or reference to a report by any archivist or curator independent of the NPS that addresses this issue. In fact, I have never run across a report made by or at the request of the NPS or GNMP from a qualified archivist or curator. I have only found references to letters in the NPS' possession from officials from the State of Pennsylvania that examined artifacts that state loaned to the GNMP indicating that they were found to be safely housed and preserved.
A far cheaper option to the perceived problem with storage of the artifacts exists than building a $39.28 million visitor's center. That option would be a no frills, offsite storage facility. If the real issue is the preservation of artifacts and manuscripts, that would seem to be the most common sense choice.
With regard to the Cyclorama building, has a cost analysis of restoration of the building really been performed to ensure adequate housing of the mural within it? Is it cheaper to restore the Cyclorama or demolish it and spend $40 million? This building in itself has significance as a work by a well known architect and is listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. Many view the current building as an unattractive structure, but tastes change over time and I am sure that 25 years down the road, the new visitor's center will have its detractors also. I personally find the Washington Monument unattractive, but I would not want a national treasure destroyed because it offends my eye. If the mural can be housed safely in the current Cyclorama at a cost cheaper than building the new visitor's center, I would keep it.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The GNMP says that by demolishing the current visitor's center and the Cyclorama, it will restore that portion of the battlefield on which they currently sit to its condition in 1863. How does one truly restore that which has already been destroyed? That land will never be the same as it was in 1863. Restoration is not preservation—it is a poor substitute. The money is better used acquiring and protecting more battlefield land at Gettysburg and the hundreds of other endangered battlefields across the country. We have already lost that part of the Gettysburg battlefield as it was in 1863. And at least one unique structure, the Cyclorama has, in effect, become part of the battlefield. I see no benefit to erecting a modern structure on another portion of hallowed ground, thus destroying another part of the battlefield. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It is said by the GNMP that they would remove the current structures which sit on ''significant'' ground and replace them with a new structure sitting on ''insignificant'' ground. There are no insignificant portions of that battlefield. You cannot measure the worth of a part of a battlefield by the number of lives lost per square foot. If events in July 1863 had gone differently, men could have lost their lives trying to take and trying to defend that very portion of the battlefield on which the new visitor's center is supposed to be located. There were men there in 1863 at the proposed site who where willing to sacrifice their lives. They were fortunate they did not have to do so. But they would have done so and that is as significant.
So, if a new visitor's center is deemed to be necessary, it should and could be built on land outside the battlefield.
There is a commercial component to the new visitor's center proposal. As a preservatiomst who seeks to honor the men who gave and risked their lives for noble ideas and preserve the land they defended and died defending, I am deeply offended that any commercial development, no matter how small, gains a footing on that land. It is a dishonor to the men who fought there. I also fear it is an opening to larger profit making ventures on this and other battlefields. This is or should be public land belonging to all of us. Private business interests often conflict with the public interest. That is why the NPS, an agency of our government, is entrusted with the battlefields, and not private land developers. That is why Congress is the ultimate arbitrator of what should be done with that land, in spite of some employees of the NPS and GNMP's apparent assertions to the contrary.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also have a real concern that this proposed building will not only destroy a portion af the battlefield it would sit upon, but will also encourage commercial development on other battlefield land outside the Gettysburg park boundaries that might otherwise have been preserved.
That brings me to the matter of funding for this new visitor's center. I have heard the director of the GNMP speak vague numbers and give glowing predictions of how the funding for this visitor's center would be raised and how that the building will pay for itself. I am not convinced. I hope that your committee will be given more detailed figures and will analyze them closely. I am particularly intrigued by what happens if there is a muli-million dollar debt incurred to build it, and the visitor's center does not generate the funds to support that debt. Who will pick up the tab? Will that lead to even more commercialization in an effort to pay the original debt? I fail to see how simply building a new visitor's center will increase visitation and revenues. The NPS' logic seems to be ''Build it and they will come [and spend money].'' It worked in the movie, I am not sure it will work here.
I would like the committee to inquire as to why a private land developer is needed at all if all the funds are to be either borrowed or donated. I would like to know whether Mr. Kinsley or any business in which he has a financial interest will profit directly or indirectly from building this visitor's center. That would include any tax breaks, contracts related to building and construciion, or potential profit by current or future investments in land and development adjacent to or near the proposed site for the visitor's center. Mr. Kinsley called this his ''gift to America.'' I would like to know if it is really a gift. Giving denotes sacrifice, not profit.
There are many needs and other uses for the money that would be raised to fund this building. Most are more pressing than a new visitor's center. Perhaps a smaller scale project addressing the primary issues, preservation of artifacts and of the mural in the Cyclorama, would be better suited and free up money for battlefields that are really endangered. I would gladly donate money to preserve land at Perryville, Brandy Station, Murfreesboro, or the hundreds of other sites that are so threatened right now and may be lost forever. I will never donate money for a modern building as long as there are so many other more pressing needs in preserving our heritage.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, I would like to address the NPS' assertions that a new visitor's center would draw more people to Gettysburg, which appears to be part of the basis for their optimistic financial projections. I am amazed that tourism and tourist dollars play a role in this process at all. First of all, this is not a tourist attraction. It is a battlefield where men died or risked death. So counting tourists and dollars as if this is an amusement park offends me and should offend anyone who truly respects what happened on that land 135 years ago. Secondly, I believe that visitation to Gettysburg has been on the rise in recent years without a new visitor's center. The only attraction that draws so many visitors to Gettysburg is the battlefield itself. People come to walk it and to contemplate what happened there and why. The land is the attraction. I have never visited a national park or, in particular, a battlefield of such significance to our history, simply because it has a modern visitor's center, a restaurant, a gift shop or even a museum. I have never repeatedly returned to one because it had any of these things, nor have I failed to return to a battlefield because it lacked them. A cold, sterile structure containing a cafeteria and gift shop will not increase tourism. Those who come to Gettysburg will continue to come for what is truly important
I ask that this letter be made a permanent part of the record. I also hope that any testimony given during your hearing will be taken under oath.
Thank you for your efforts in seeing that these issues are examined by your subcommittee and for taking the time to consider my comments. By holding a hearing, you are doing a great service to the public, and to the memory of those who gave so much to this country 135 years ago.
Respectfully,
| cc: Honorable Zoe Lofgren |
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the National Park Service's draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park and the proposal to develop a new park visitor center and museum facility. The proposal is to achieve these objectives in partnership with a non-profit foundation and without construction cost to the taxpayer. While the proposal has evolved in response to public comment, it is consistent with the objectives set forth in the related planning documents and is strongly supported by the National Park Service.
Protection of the resources at Gettysburg has been the driving force behind this proposal and all related planning. We are committed to the protection of those resources. Also of high priority is removal of incompatible development from within the boundary of the park. The National Tower is one of those developments and acquisition and removal of the tower is of paramount importance to this Administration. The President has made this a priority in our FY 2000 budget along with the acquisition of another 93 acres of land within the boundary of the park where there is either incompatible development or plans for inappropriate development.
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg National Military Park is the nationally significant site of the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg and the Soldier's National Cemetery. The Battle of Gettysburg lessened the Confederacy's ability to successfully wage war and contributed to the ultimate preservation of the United States. Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery and heightened Americans' sense of the meaning and importance of the Civil War. Veterans of the Battle of Gettysburg created the park. They preserved major features of the battlefield and commemorated with monuments, markers and cannon the valor and sacrifice of the battle's participants.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The park encompasses 5,900 acres of terrain upon which most of the battle occurred. More than 1,700 monuments and cannon were placed by the battle's survivors to commemorate their comrades who fell in battle. Gettysburg National Military Park also owns collections of 38,000 artifacts and 350,000 printed texts, historic photographs and other archival documents. The largest and one of the most significant objects in the collection is the cyclorama painting, the ''Battle of Gettysburg.'' The giant painting illustrates Pickett's Charge, the culmination of the three-day battle. The painting, which measures 26 feet by 356 feet, is a national historic object as designated under the historic sites act of 1935. Together, the land, monuments, archival collection, and the cyclorama painting, represent a remarkable resource that can tell the complete and compelling story of this important time in America's history.
The National Park Service's mission at Gettysburg National Military Park is to preserve and protect the resources associated with the Battle of Gettysburg and the Soldier's National Cemetery, and to provide an understanding of the events that occurred there within the context of American History. Gettysburg NMP, like many other units of the National Park System, is faced with a number of serious issues. First, the current visitor center and museum facilities are inadequate to meet resource conservation and preservation needs. The thousands of archival and curatorial objects in the park's collections are deteriorating because of the substandard conditions in which they are stored. Storage facilities lack air conditioning, humidity and dust control. Paint is flaking off the cyclorama and the seams are separating. The extreme humidity variations to which the current cyclorama gallery exposes the painting continue to cause damage. There is not enough space in the gallery to hang the painting properly. Second, our visitor facilities, sized for a visitation level of about 450,000 people a year, handle more than 1.2 million people. Third, these facilities are located on some of the most significant land of battle, land that was central to the Battle of Gettysburg at the site of what has been called the high-water mark of the battle. These structures are visible from large portions of the battlefield and intrude on the battlefield's historic setting. Additionally, the scope of the solution and federal funding limitations effectively have precluded the possibility of improving existing facilities or constructing replacement facilities with government funds in the near term. Accordingly, other funding alternatives have been explored.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When parks face these kinds of problems, several planning tools are available to NPS to solve them. The first is the General Management Plan (GMP), a document that sets forth the basic management philosophy for a park and provides strategies for protecting resources and interpreting them. A second tool NPS uses is the Development Concept Plan. Development Concept Plans are implementation plans that answer specific questions about the location, size and functions of built facilities. Sometimes, because of a Development Concept Plan or other interpretive plan, a GMP may be amended or revised. As in all of its planning, NPS completes required compliance and consultation, including public involvement and comment.
Gettysburg's General Management Plan was completed in 1982 and by 1994 the plan was out of date and did not provide adequate solutions to these key problems. Although Gettysburg had been on the NPS priority list for a new GMP for a number of years, funds did not become available for a new comprehensive planning process until April 1997.
The Development Concept Plan
In the meantime, in December 1994, a local developer proposed a new Cyclorama Center paired with a private IMAX theater on a piece of park-owned land. In order to respond to that unsolicited offer, NPS held three public workshops and produced a draft plan/environmental assessment to evaluate the proposal. After 65 days of public and agency review, NPS decided not to go the route proposed by this unsolicited offer. We heard the public's concern regarding this proposal, especially the role it would have given to a for-profit commercial enterprise. So we decided to look, instead, at other options for developing a new cyclorama center that would also address the other desperately needed facilities.
NPS decided to take an approach at Gettysburg that was different from that taken in previous partnerships and specific to the conditions at Gettysburg. We wanted more public involvement than is typical so that we could be sure the public was thoroughly informed. We wanted to look at a full range of alternatives for needed facilities and give the public a voice in developing the criteria under which the proposals would be evaluated. We wanted to allow all interested potential partners to submit proposals. The process we developed did all of these things. Given the opportunities presented to NPS, and the conditions and restrictions we faced at Gettysburg, this was the best way we could find to ensure that the public understood and had generous opportunities to comment. We believe that the result was a public process with integrity and one that has provided the public with unprecedented opportunities for meaningful comment.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Throughout this process the National Park Service has been open to public comment. We have made changes at every step of the process to respond to the public's concerns. We have made revisions and recommended to partners specific changes that we believe have resulted in a stronger program for Gettysburg than has been proposed at various steps throughout the process. Our chief concern has been the protection of the resources entrusted to us at Gettysburg. We believe that the net result will provide the greatest protection for the resources at Gettysburg and will ensure that no one individual or corporation financially benefits, and instead, that all Americans benefit both now and in the years to come.
To provide the public opportunities to comment, between August 1995 and April 1996, NPS prepared a Draft Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment (DCP) to explore alternatives for the facilities. The DCP focused on four goals:
• Protection of the park's collection of objects and archives: Providing appropriate storage conditions for the proper care and curation of these collections.
• Preservation of the Cyclorama Painting: Providing an appropriate gallery space to halt the continued deterioration of the painting.
• Provision of High-Quality Interpretation and Educational Opportunities for Park Visitors: New exhibits and broader interpretation to provide visitors with an understanding of the Gettysburg Campaign in its broad context of the Civil War and American history.
• Restoration of the High-water Mark of the Battle: Rehabilitation of the area that saw 950 men become casualties of battle.
The DCP evaluated four alternative concepts to address these goals.
(1) A no-action alternative;
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) Construction of a collections and archival storage facility only;
(3) Renovation of the Visitor Center in place and construction of a new Cyclorama center incorporating collections and archival storage; and
(4) Construction of a new facility that incorporated all these uses.
The DCP suggested that NPS look for a private partner to raise funds and construct the needed facilities.
As a part of the DCP process, NPS held a series of public workshops, including a scoping meeting with a 30-day public review of the scoping documents, and a 45-day public review of the draft DCP. Twelve public workshops, focus groups, and Advisory Commission meetings were held by NPS on these proposals. In addition, through the workshops and then in the DCP, NPS gave the public a chance to comment on the criteria it proposed using to evaluate proposals, partners and potential sites.
The Request for Proposal
After considering comments on the draft DCP, NPS decided to continue the process and look for a partner to accomplish the work. To this end, NPS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on December 11, 1996. The RFP solicited proposals from sources that would enter into an agreement with NPS to provide a new visitor center and museum facilities either on park land or on non-park land in the vicinity of the park. The RFP noted that NPS might undertake additional environmental planning procedures after an evaluation of environmental issues that might result from a proposal selected for negotiation. Among other matters, the RFP specifically noted that the existing 1982 GMP might be considered for amendment through the usual environmental planning procedures. It further noted that no final commitment by NPS to a proposal selected for negotiation would be made until such required environmental planning had been completed and its results considered by the agency.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By the closing date of the RFP, May 16, 1997, NPS received six proposals. On November 8, 1997, NPS announced selection for negotiation of the proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Kinsley on behalf of a new non-profit foundation, the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation (the Foundation). This is a different individual, a different entity, and a different concept than in the December, 1994 proposal for a new Cyclorama Center and IMAX theater.
The proposal selected for negotiation, as originally proposed, would have the non-profit foundation construct for the National Park Service a new Gettysburg NMP Visitor Center and Museum on a privately-owned 45-acre site within the boundaries of the park and located at the intersection of Hunt and Baltimore Avenues. In addition, NPS facilities would include a new Cyclorama Gallery, an orientation theater utilizing the electric map, and the Eastern National Bookstore. Related facilities included a large format cinema for a film about the Gettysburg Campaign to be produced by National Geographic Television, a National Geographic Store, food service, a tour center, a tour center gift shop, and a Civil War Arts and Crafts Gallery. As I explain below, some important elements of this original proposal have been substantially changed.
The non-profit foundation would raise funds to build and then operate and manage the new visitor center and museum. The $40.4 million needed to acquire the land and build the facility would come from a combination of grants, nonprofit fundraising, and commercial loans. The proposal suggested that approximately $22 million would be raised through grants and non-profit fundraising to cover the costs of most of the NPS facilities, but not including land and soft costs i.e., costs of planning, design, financing, etc. The Foundation planned to raise the balance needed to cover land, soft costs and building costs for related facilities through non-recourse commercial loans.
The proposal did not require that a fee be charged to visitors for entrance to the Visitor Center and Museum facilities. Revenue would be generated through a continuation of the park's current interpretive fees, and new fees for the film to be shown in the National Geographic Theater, revenues from the tour center, food service and other retail facilities, and a parking fee. The proposal suggested that the institutional financing would be guaranteed through the leasing of space to long-term tenants. NPS would be responsible for a pro-rata share of operating costs related to use of its portion of the facilities. Eastern National would pay rent, along with other tenants, on the spaces it operated for NPS.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This proposal was judged to provide the best opportunity for negotiation that could make it possible for Gettysburg NMP to achieve its principal objectives. However, there were aspects of the original proposal selected for negotiation that needed further consideration. As a part of this process, NPS sought comments on the proposal through a public review process. Between November 1997 and March 1998, we held six public workshops and three open houses and mailed a newsletter to 3,800 people to acquaint the public with the proposal selected for negotiation and to continue the environmental assessment process begun with the DCP.
During this review, NPS received over 3,200 sets of written comments from the public. Of those, more than 85 percent of respondents favored the proposal, 11.5 percent opposed the proposal, and 2.7 percent were undecided. Of those in favor of the proposal, most noted that the facilities were needed, and that the proposal offered a way to build them without reliance upon federal funds. Others favored the restoration of the sites of the current visitor and cyclorama center.
Of all comments, both favorable and unfavorable, 29 percent were concerned with the level of commercial development in the proposal. Many people did not like the idea or the building size required by an IMAX film. Others were concerned about the food service or retail components of the project. Site issues were the concern of 17 percent of the comments; many people found the site acceptable if it could be shielded from view and if artillery sites along the eastern edge of the property could be avoided. Others were concerned about traffic, others wanted to be sure the program included enough museum space, and others disapproved of parking fees. Some people were opposed to public/private ventures on principle and wanted full federal funding for the park. A few wanted the park to stay as it is.
Local concerns were expressed at public workshops and meetings of the park's advisory commission and the Gettysburg Borough Council. Merchants from the Steinwehr Avenue business community expressed concerns about moving the facility from its current location on Steinwehr Avenue because of perceived impacts on their businesses. Other downtown business owners wanted more involvement on the part of NPS in the development and interpretation of the historic downtown.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On a national level, other concerns and questions were noted. Ensuring that the site was appropriate for development from the perspective of historical significance and finding mechanisms to protect Baltimore Pike from unsuitable development were important issues to many. Observers wanted to ensure that all related facilities would be necessary and appropriate, and would meet the requirements of the RFP and of NPS' management policies. National partners wanted to ensure that the proposal would result in a quality designed building and site. Also noted were questions regarding the mechanisms that NPS would use to manage the project over the long term to ensure a quality facility and operation of such. One organization was concerned that fundraising for a Gettysburg project might reduce the funds it was able to raise for its land purchases.
Because the issue of the appropriateness of the site was of concern to many, NPS undertook a comprehensive review of the site. That review determined that although an artillery battery had operated from a ridge that crossed the eastern edge of the property and continued through several residences located on the Baltimore Pike, no significant battle action had occurred on the balance of the tract. NPS determined that this ridge would continue to be protected. The Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission asked a panel of independent Civil War historians to review NPS' work and their own sources of information to determine if any significant battle action occurred on this site. This independent panel agreed that no significant activity occurred there. A phase I archaeological study of the site was undertaken and found seven small prehistoric lithic scatters, three historic quarries and approximately 73 Civil War artifacts, consisting of artillery shell fragments, minie balls, and unidentified impacted rounds. The Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission has concurred that none of the locations are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
After public comments on the proposal selected for negotiation were received, changes to respond to public concerns and questions were made in the original proposal selected for negotiation.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The refinements included two additions to the NPS requirements. The foundation suggested a 1,700-square-foot public library and research center. It also proposed expanding the Eastern National Bookstore to sell reproductions of items in the park's collection including maps, prints and other objects. Such a shop would be similar to the museum store operated by Eastern National for NPS at the Jamestown Visitor Center, Colonial National Historical Park. Returns from this operation would be used to benefit resource preservation at the park.
The foundation also suggested other changes to reduce or eliminate the commercial aspects of the project. These included reducing the theater size and using a conventional, non-IMAX format for the film. In addition, the theater would be operated by Eastern National or the foundation as a non-profit venture. Proceeds from the theater interpretive fee would be used to pay off the commercial loan or to benefit the park. The for-profit Civil War Arts and Crafts Gallery, the National Geographic Store and the tour center gift shop would be eliminated. The proposed tour center would be open to different types of tours using Licensed Battlefield Guides, including antique vehicles, bicycle tours, horse tours, etc. The foundation also agreed to reduce by at least 50 percent the size of the family-oriented cafeteria.
The net result of these proposed changes was to eliminate all for-profit commercial elements of the original proposal, except for the cafeteria, which itself might be operated by a for-profit entity or by the foundation, and the licensed battlefield guide tours, who currently operate in the park. The parking fee was also eliminated.
Letter of Intent
After consideration of public comments and at the conclusion of the RFP process, on July 10, 1998, the National Park Service issued a Letter of Intent to the foundation. The Letter of Intent records the changes proposed for the visitor center/museum facility by the foundation, the objectives of the project, the general responsibilities of the foundation, and the actions NPS will undertake to support the project. Specific terms and conditions for fundraising and design an construction guidelines are also included. The Letter of Intent was signed by both NPS and the foundation.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The proposal outlined in the Letter of Intent is subject to further revision through the NPS planning process. If the planning process does not result in an acceptable proposal, the proposed visitor center facility will not go forward. Final execution of a binding agreement for the new facilities is subject to the successful completion of all required planning, consideration of further public comment on the proposal, and adoption of any further changes that may result from the planning process and additional public comment.
The General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
In April 1997, NPS began the planning for a new General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) to replace the park's outdated 1982 GMP. Because the RFP was underway, NPS announced that it would defer consideration of new facilities as a part of the GMP until proposals were received and evaluated. The proposal selected for negotiation in response to the RFP would be incorporated into the GMP/EIS. Working with the public, NPS established goals for the GMP. Those are:
• The land and resources of Gettysburg NMP are protected, rehabilitated and maintained.
• Visitors understand and appreciate the significant events associated with the Gettysburg Campaign and its impact on the development of the nation.
• Visitors safely enjoy high quality and accessible educational experiences.
• Public and private entities understand the park's mission and act cooperatively to protect and interpret the park and other resources related to the Gettysburg Campaign and its commemoration.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a part of the process, NPS held public scoping meetings, workshops and focus group meetings, prepared and presented new mapping and resource work to explain the 1863 battle landscape and the changes it had undergone; and evaluated 5 preliminary concepts. Because of public comment, a sixth combined concept was developed. This combined concept eventually became NPS' preferred alternative.
NPS determined that the best way to complete needed environmental planning for the proposal selected for negotiation was to terminate the environmental assessment process for the collections storage, museum and visitor center facilities DCP and incorporate the proposal selected for negotiation into the ongoing park-wide GMP/EIS. NPS incorporated the issues resulting from the DCP environmental assessment into the draft GMP/EIS as well as the changes suggested during the extensive public review of the proposal selected for negotiation.
In August 1998, Gettysburg National Military Park released a draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement presenting four alternatives for future management of the Gettysburg battlefield, and setting the basic philosophy and broad guidance for management decisions that affect the park's resources and the visitor's experience. The draft GMP/EIS included a preferred alternative derived from public comments on the preliminary concepts.
The preferred alternative in the draft GMP/EIS includes a suite of actions to improve resource protection and interpretation at the park. In the battle action areas of the park, the preferred alternative would include rehabilitation of the large-scale landscape elements present during the battle—the pattern of woods and open fields, and the system of lanes over which troops traveled. It also proposes the rehabilitation of small-scale landscape elements—fences, woodlots, orchards and other features—that were significant to the outcome of the battle. The preferred alternative would provide for the rehabilitation of the major historic features and circulation at the Soldiers' National Cemetery. This approach to rehabilitation, coupled with the new museum facility, would broaden the scope of interpretation and expand the places at the park that could be well understood by visitors. The alternative a]so included other resource protection and visitor use measures. In addition to the measures within the park, the preferred alternative proposed many measures to partner with local communities, particularly the Borough of Gettysburg, to improve resource protection and interpretation of battlefield-related resources outside of the park's boundary.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a part of the Draft GMP/EIS, impacts, including the economic impact of the proposal and of the GMP alternatives, were evaluated. The results of the economic impacts assessment has been of particular interest to the Borough of Gettysburg and others in the local communities. The economic evaluation, conducted by an independent contractor on behalf of NPS, indicates that the impact of the preferred alternative of the GMP is positive. Expenditures in the community—excluding expenditures in the park—are expected to increase by $23.7 million, or more than 21 percent, with stable or increased visitor expenditures in each of the lodging, food, transportation, and retail and amusement sectors of the local tourist economy. The Draft GMP/EIS notes that although some individual businesses may be affected by the proposal, the overall positive economic impact should be a benefit to the local community.
The Borough of Gettysburg has expressed concerns over the possible reduction of its tax base. However, these concerns consider only the relocation of the visitor center and museum and not the overall proposal. The action alternatives of the draft GMP/EIS include a number of actions to integrate the interpretation of the community into the battlefield. Many of these actions are very significant and should increase the positive impact of the GMP on downtown. They include:
• Adding downtown Gettysburg to the park's auto tour brochure as the ''fourth day'' of the battle. Since the great majority of the park's visitors tour the battlefield using the brochure, including the Borough of Gettysburg as an element on the tour has the potential to greatly increase tourism in the area.
• Expanding the historic pathway and related interpretive media and programs to encompass a greater portion of the historic town.
• Cooperating with local entities to preserve, rehabilitate and interpret the Lincoln Train Station.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
• Establishing an NPS presence downtown at the Wills House to ensure that the story of the town and its non-combatants is properly presented and interpreted.
• Developing, in coordination with local entities, an active menu of programs, interpretation, living history and tours to educate visitors about the town's role in the battle, its aftermath and the preservation of the battlefield. Providing information about the town and site interpreting the Gettysburg Battle and its aftermath in the park visitor center.
• Working with the community and private entities to provide regular shuttle service between the Visitor Center/Museum and downtown Gettysburg.
To accomplish these actions, NPS has begun work with a local and state steering committee to plan for these improvements. In addition, economic research suggests that the complete proposal will have beneficial tax effects for the entire area, including Cumberland Township (where the majority of the park is located) as well as the Borough of Gettysburg.
As a part of the GMP process, NPS held 30 public workshops, focus groups meetings and Advisory Commission meetings. These included seven workshops held during the 60-day public comment period, as well as two oral hearings, where testimony was recorded. During the GMP public comment period more than 500 comments were received, almost 75 percent of which supported the NPS preferred alternative.
The draft GMP/EIS incorporated the environmental issues that resulted from the proposal selected for negotiation, and NPS is considering all comments received from the public on this issue.
Conclusion
NPS has undertaken an exhaustive process of public involvement and review in developing its draft GMP/EIS. Between the GMP process and its predecessor DCP process, we have held 50 public meetings and have received and considered 4,600 public comments. The public has been involved in every step of this process and has had the opportunity to comment at every stage. The public comment has been effective. We have heard and responded to the voice of the public.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of public and agency concern expressed before the issuance of the draft GMP/EIS, we have removed commercial facilities from the proposed visitor center; cut the size of the restaurant facility by more than half; turned the restaurant into a family cafeteria; and decided that the theater would be operated by the park's non-profit cooperating association or the foundation, with the proceeds from the operation to benefit NPS' resource protection activities.
If the preferred alternative is adopted with the inclusion of appropriate changes resulting from public comments received, the result would be a very strong proposal, one that would guide appropriate rehabilitation of the battlefield so that it could convey, in meaningful ways, the landscape of the great Civil War battle. The Museum proposal would allow us to preserve the park's archives, collections and the colossal cyclorama painting. Gettysburg NMP would be able to provide much improved interpretation of the causes, course and consequences of the Gettysburg Campaign. Moreover, thanks to the generosity and entrepreneurial spirit of private sector partners, NPS could accomplish this at no cost to the taxpayers. However, it is important to note that a final decision on the draft GMP/EIS has not been made and that a final preferred alternative has not been selected.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. KINSLEY, MANAGING PARTNER, KINSLEY EQUITIES
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased that the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands is holding this hearing to discuss the issues related to the proposed visitor center and museum at Gettysburg. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this very important project.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I remember vividly my first visit to Gettysburg on a seventh grade trip. Standing in Devil's Den, I experienced the sense of awe familiar to many who have visited that historic place. That experience remains with me today and is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about creating a new visitor center and museum that honors and respects the heritage of Gettysburg.
When I first learned of this project, it was from developers who requested that I either purchase their lands or provide the venture capital necessary to develop their commercial plans. It was my feeling that the proposed sites for these plans were far from the battle action and the Borough of Gettysburg, and quite frankly overshadowed by commercial, lodging and conference activity. My belief was that the history of the civil war should not be presented to our children and grandchildren in that context.
I decided to submit my own proposal, and it was selected by the National Park Service. Upon our selection, we then began negotiating with the park service—working together to create a plan for the visitor center that would be a model for privatization of such park projects.
Since we began our work together, there has been an outreach process that has encouraged input from the local community, historians, environmentalists, and from all Americans. The Park Service has conducted numerous public meetings, and the public's input has been an integral part of the evolution of this project.
In an effort to create a dialogue with the Gettysburg community in the past year, I have met with a committee of the council of the Borough of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Gettysburg-Adams County area chamber of commerce, and the Gettysburg Area Retail Merchants Association. We have also participated in the Borough's ''working committee,'' which has led to the formation of a steering committee to develop an interpretive plan for the historic Borough of Gettysburg. We hope to continue working with Borough representatives as the museum and visitor center project progresses to ensure that the important history of the Borough is told along with the story of the battle.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year we established the non-profit Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation to undertake the visitor center and museum project. The goals of the foundation parallel those of the park service: to preserve the artifacts and archives, to restore and preserve the Cyclorama painting, and to provide an expanded quality interpretive and educational experience for the visitor to Gettysburg.
Of utmost importance will be the restoration of Ziegler's Grove and the Highwater Mark of the battle, which are situated adjacent to the historic national cemetery. Archaeological and historic surveys have determined that the proposed site for the museum and visitor center, south of Hunt Avenue between the former Fantasyland site and Baltimore Pike, saw no significant battle action. The site is located in an area out of the direct view shed of the High Water Mark of the battle and Culp's Hill, permitting the building to be built in such a way that it does not intrude on the landscape. The building can be situated away from Kinzie's Knoll and the position of Rugg's Battery, which are at the northeastern edge of the site, thereby permitting these historic places to be appropriately interpreted. Also, the site is in an area that can be protected and buffered from commercialism.
The Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation will be funded by grants from foundations, corporate sponsorships, local businesses, and the contributions of individuals. We are confident that we will be able to raise the capital necessary to complete this project.
When the project has been fully funded and the debt retired, the property will be presented to the National Park Service as a gift to the American people. The Statue of Liberty—Ellis Island project stands before us as a model for success, having received over $400 million in contributions from the American people.
We are hopeful that the new museum and visitor center will increase overall visitorship to the Gettysburg area. We believe that the new center and the enhanced interpretive experience will spark the interest of students, seniors, families and all Americans. Such improved offerings should bring more visitors to the area and lengthen the duration of their stay.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Museum Foundation is committed to providing a more complete interpretation of the events that took place in and around Gettysburg in July of 1863. A well-planned, coordinated transportation system is integral to that effort. A thoughtful approach to transportation will allow for a meaningful experience for the visitor, as well as increased economic benefits for the Borough of Gettysburg. We look forward to building a strong and effective partnership among the foundation, the National Park Service and the Borough of Gettysburg.
It is expected that a national fundrais1ng campaign will be conducted by the foundation simultaneously with the planning of the project. Construction would commence approximately two years after the definitive agreement with the Park Service is signed, but only after all necessary funds have been pledged or received. All net proceeds realized by the foundation from operations, after payment of debt service and cost of operations will benefit the Park Service.
I believe that the Gettysburg National Military Park has a talented and committed team. The park, together with the foundation and the Borough, can make this project a true success. Gettysburg and its history belong to all Americans.
I thank Chairman Hansen and the Subcommittee for their concern and involvement with this important project.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 31 HERE
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on the Gettysburg National Military Park. Gettysburg is a very special place to me. During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked very closely with the Park and the broader Gettysburg community. In addition, I have closely monitored the general management plan process and the visitor center proposal, and I will remain very engaged in the future.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Your hearing today on the Park's current GMP proposal is important for a variety of reasons. First, it serves as an opportunity to further educate you on the needs of the Park. Second, this hearing is a chance for you to learn more about the future of the Park as detailed in the GMP proposal. Also, this hearing will help to dispel many of the misperceptions of the GMP process and will help highlight the level of support for the project.
The needs at the Park are very real, and we've taken some action to address those needs. With the help of Senator Slade Gorton, I secured a permanent, annual increase of $1 million to the Gettysburg National Military Park budget in the FY 1998 Interior Appropriations Act. This money is designated specifically for preservation and restoration of the Park's monuments, memorials, and artifacts. The appropriation alone, though, is not enough.
The existing visitor center and cyclorama building, constructed in the early 1960's, can no longer adequately serve the number of people that visit the park each year. These structures are wholly inadequate for the storage, care, preservation, and display of Civil War artifacts. Words alone cannot accurately depict these conditions, and anyone who has visited the Park can speak to the need for improved facilities.
Very simply, the future vitality of the Gettysburg National Military Park lies with the new visitor center. The creation and utilization of a new facility will better serve the public. It will present a better historical interpretive experience for children, and it will provide better display and foster greater appreciation for 90 percent of the Park's artifacts that are currently in inadequate storage.
Unlike the current structures, the site for the new visitor center would not interfere with either the visual or physical interpretation of the Battlefield. The proposed site remains close to the most widely visited areas of the park—the National Cemetery and Cemetery Ridge. Equally compelling, the new visitor center will also allow for restoration of Ziegler's Grove on Cemetery Ridge. The significance of such restoration cannot be understated. The current cyclorama building and current visitor center are located on perhaps the most significant portion of the Battlefield—the main Union ''fishhook'' line that repelled Pickett's charge. Construction of the proposed new center allows the two current buildings to be torn down and Ziegler's Grove to be restored. The result is a better visual interpretive experience for the public and a better visual appreciation for the three day Battle of Gettysburg.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The visitor center proposal is contained within the draft GMP plan, which is the main topic of this hearing today. Mr. Chairman, in your recent letter to Secretary Babbitt, you state that there has been a strong level of opposition to the proposal and to the process by which the proposal was presented to the public. You state that it is not too late to correct this fatally flawed document as well as the public process that you say has been ineffective.
Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the assertions and conclusions in your letter. I remain very personally engaged in this matter, and my staff has attended every public meeting and monitored every development in this process.
The draft general management plan was issued to the public in August 1998. Over the course of the ensuing sixty-day public comment period, public meeting opportunities were extended to the public to learn about the GMP, to ask questions, and to offer official comment for the GMP record. In November, I spent the day in Gettysburg to meet with a group of concerned citizens. In addition, I met with (Gettysburg) borough officials to develop not only a better understanding of their viewpoint on the GMP, but also to identify a list of economic development projects to further enhance the visitor experience in downtown Gettysburg.
While I too acknowledge that there is opposition to the GMP and in particular the visitor center proposal, I'll take this opportunity to share with you the input I continue to receive through my constituent mail, phone calls, and meetings. In short, that input has been overwhelmingly positive. The majority of the constituents that have written are from the Gettysburg area, including business owners, individuals, and families. While I have received mail expressing concern, and in some cases opposition, the large majority of the input remains positive and supportive. Additionally, the support for the visitor center has not been isolated to Adams County or central Pennsylvania.
I am very satisfied with the opportunities extended to the public during the GMP's sixty-day comment period. I am also pleased with the adaptations that have been made to the visitor center proposal that reflect public opinion and concern. It is my expectation that the final GMP and visitor center concept contained in it will further reflect public input.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, it is in the best interest of this Park that the GMP process move forward. I believe this process has been fair and that the GMP proposal is sound. Those that continue to register objections with the process are simply not happy with the product. Whether it is the need or merits of a new visitor center, or some other issue, this Park will always have critics acting in what they feel is best for the Park's future. Delay in the construction of a new visitor center will serve no one, least of which is the Park itself and its hundreds of thousands of visitors.
I will continue to be involved in addressing the needs in the Gettysburg area in the future and will continue working with the Park and the local community to ensure that any activities are in the best interests of the residents of Gettysburg, the residents of Adams County, and in the best interests of the Park itself.
STATEMENT OF EILEEN WOODFORD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, my name is Eileen Woodford and I am the Northeast Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA). I am pleased to present this testimony concerning the proposed museum complex and general management plan at Gettysburg National Military Park (NMP). NPCA is America's only private, nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An association of ''Citizens Protecting America's Parks,'' NPCA was founded in 1919, and today has nearly 400,000 members.
NPCA strongly supports the draft general management plan and museum proposal for Gettysburg National Military Park. This innovative plan has the ability to return Gettysburg to being the world-class national park that it so much deserves to be.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NPCA did not make the decision to support the museum proposal lightly. We understand only too well what profound changes the proposal and general management plan will bring to Gettysburg NMP. But those changes are necessary. We can no longer tolerate mold and mites eating away at the park's collection. We can no longer tolerate watching the paint chip off the Cyclorama painting. We can no longer tolerate visitors putting up with a second-rate experience. And we can no longer tolerate the intrusion of a wholly inadequate visitor center and dysfunctional cyclorama building onto some of the most sacred ground in this country.
At the outset of the planning process for the museum complex, NPCA stated that we supported the concept of using a public/private partnership to construct and manage this critically needed facility, but we would only support a proposal that passed the most stringent of tests and proved to uphold the highest of resource protection standards. Indeed, aspects of the initial museum facility as proposed by Kinsley Equities were highly unacceptable to us. We would only take a position on the project when we saw all the information related to it in a final draft proposal, which was to be the draft general management plan.
Because of the dire situation at the park, it was necessary to explore a constructive outcome, and both the National Park Service (NPS) and Kinsley were open to public input for making the proposal acceptable. To insure that the proposal was acceptable to us and met only the highest standards, we participated in nearly every single public meeting sponsored by the Park Service. We examined all public documents and provided written comments to NPS stating our specific concerns. We met with both supporters and opponents of the museum proposal to hear their points of view. We articulated strict, new standards by which to judge the appropriateness of related activities where none existed. We subjected the museum proposal to extensive financial and economic analysis. We have given the draft proposal and general management plan the most rigorous of examinations, and we have concluded that they will significantly improve the preservation of historic resources and the visitor experience without compromising the integrity of the park.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Need for the Museum and Visitor Center Complex
The need for the proposed museum complex is unassailable. At the beginning of the planning process for a new museum complex, NPS set forth four preservation goals: to protect the park's collection of objects and archives; preserve the cyclorama painting; provide high quality interpretation and educational opportunities for park visitors; and rehabilitate Ziegler's Grove and the High Water Mark of the Battle.
After much investigation of the conditions at Gettysburg, including several site visits, NPCA came to the conclusion that the status quo was unacceptable and that the preservation goals that the Park Service had laid out were not only supportable but absolutely necessary. Moreover, given the severity and extensiveness of the park's needs, a facility that addressed the whole array of needs made the most functional and financial sense. The proposed complex combines a number of interrelated functions that allows NPS to carry out core resource protection and visitor services operations in a comprehensive manner, rather than through fragmented management activities scattered around the park.
I will now go through specific aspects of the planning process, including the request for proposals, the selection of the partner, the location of the complex and the land acquisition, and the project's financial structure to explain how NPCA came to a position of support.
Request For Proposals
The Request For Proposals (RFP) issued by NPS to solicit partnership proposals is a sound document that sought a responsible market solution to critical problems while safeguarding the interests of the American public. NPCA participated in the entire planning process for the museum complex including reviewing and commenting on the draft development concept plan (April 1996) that became the foundation for the RFP. The draft DCP outlined the criteria by which a private partner would be evaluated. For the most part, we found these criteria thorough and comprehensive, addressing all aspects of a potential partnership, including the scope of the project, retention of NPS control over the resources and interpretive message, and protection of NPS from financial risk. However, we did have a number of significant concerns—primarily regarding the use of a for-profit partner and the need to submit the final proposal to public review—that we conveyed to NPS in our written comments.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Selection of a Partner
A major concern to NPCA was that NPS choose a private partner on the soundness of the proposal. To that end, we recommended in our draft DCP comments that NPS form a selection panel to review all the proposals. NPS did convene a panel of senior NPS staff with previous large-scale development experience that did not include the park superintendent. This assured us that all proposals would be judged on their merits and a final one selected based on its consistency with the selection criteria.
Location of the Museum Complex and Land Acquisition
After thorough examination of the Advisory Council's report on the history of the site, NPCA believes the Levan property is suitable for the museum complex and that historically significant resources that exist there can be protected through careful siting of the new facility. With regard to the price paid for the parcel, all of the proposers would have faced similar situations with sellers seeking to maximize the return on their property. Indeed, one proposer had identified this same tract as a potential development site.
Related Activities
One of NPCA's significant concerns with the initial Kinsley proposal was the nature of the related activities. In our testimony on the museum proposal submitted to the Senate subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation in February 1998, we laid out three standards by which we would evaluate all related activities. They must:
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
be necessary and appropriate;
affirmatively support the mission and purpose of the park; and
be the minimum necessary to sustain financial viability.
The array of activities, as presented in the draft general management plan, meet those standards and are acceptable for inclusion in the proposed project.
Financial Structure
A major concern for NPCA was that the project be financially viable, but not violate the integrity of the park or compromise the stewardship role of NPS over the historic resources. To give us this assurance, NPCA hired a private consultant with substantial expertise to review both the park's economic impact evaluation and Kinsley's proposal for project financing. Our consultant's review found the economic impact methodology, which looked at overall visitation projections and venue attendance estimates, appeared conservative and reasonable. Secondly, our consultant determined that the operating projections—the cash flow for the project—were reasonable. Our consultant also looked at the project financing and suggested that Kinsley reduce the debt portion of the project further. Overall, however, the financial structure appeared to be sound and reasonable.
The General Management Plan
NPCA strongly supports the proposed alternative (Alternative C) of the draft general management plan (GMP) including the proposal to develop a new visitor center and museum facility through a public/private partnership. Alternative C, with some modifications, presents the most appropriate and comprehensive policy directive to fulfill the park's mandate. It expands the interpretive themes to place the battle within the full context of the causes, course and consequences of the Civil War. This larger context will capture a broader audience and make the story of Gettysburg and the Civil War more relevant to us as individuals and as a nation. The preferred alternative will rehabilitate the battlefield to its historic condition which will allow visitors to understand and appreciate more fully the magnitude and the intensity of the battle. And lastly, it provides for a desperately needed museum facility that will educate and enrich visitors.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Public Planning Process
Finally, I want to address the public planning process for both the DCP and the GMP. Overall, NPCA found the public planning process to be exceptional. At public meetings for both the museum proposal and the GMP, the park staff was willing to listen to a wide range of opinions and ideas. Additionally, the amount and detail of historical documentation presented in the GMP public meetings was unparalleled in my four years with NPCA. The use of the documentation in the meetings brought the public into the process of framing the plan's alternatives and allowed for both the Park Service and the public to evaluate the environmental consequences of any proposed action as that proposal was being developed. This is a standard that NPCA has striven for over many years and in many general management planning processes. Gettysburg is exceptional in that the battlefield is so well documented over the years; however, the staff did a remarkable job in assembling that documentation and integrating it into the public discussion. As a result, there is a very reasonable range of alternatives all of which are well grounded in sound and extensive analysis as well as vetted by extensive public input. The integration of the museum proposal into the general management planning process did disrupt the flow of the public discussion, but the overall result is a much stronger plan.
In addition, I was greatly impressed with the park's specific effort to reach out to local governments, the business community, park partners and the institutional community through the open morning working group meetings. I have urged NPS to continue these meetings as they can be helpful to both the Park Service and the larger community in implementing this plan in ways that are beneficial to all.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. We agree that this highly innovative project, proposed at a place considered to be hallowed ground, requires the closest of scrutiny. NPS has presented us with a sound plan that has met all the tests put to it. We support the adoption and implementation of the preferred alternative of the general management plan.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER L. POWELL, PRESIDENT, GETTYSBURG BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of our Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee this morning. My name is Walter Powell, and I am President of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association. By profession I am an historian who has lectured and written widely on the subject of Gettysburg, and I live with my wife and two children in a house just a short distance from Barlow's Knoll, scene of heavy fighting on the afternoon of July 1st, 1863. Since moving to Gettysburg more than 20 years ago, I have closely watched and commented on developments at Gettysburg National Park first as a Licensed Battlefield Guide, then, since 1983, as a member of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association. The ''GBPA'' is an all-volunteer non-profit corporation established in Gettysburg in 1959, the first organization created for the expressed purpose of assisting the National Park Service with the acquisition of threatened Battlefield land, and in educating the public on the ongoing threats to the preservation of the Battlefield. Since the founding of the ''GBPA,'' we have purchased over 200 acres of land and conveyed it to the National Park Service, and have supported a variety of other projects on the Park and the larger Gettysburg Battlefield National Register Historic District. Our efforts were endorsed by former President Dwight Eisenhower, an active member who stated: ''I am emphatic in my approval of what the GBPA is doing . . . The battlefield should be preserved as a remembrance of the sacrifices made by men who fought for the things which they believe.''
I mention this background because our organization and its members have always been deeply committed to the preservation of the Battlefield, and have shared the concerns stated by the National Park Service in the past about inadequate funding, the need for improved facilities, and the problems caused by deferred maintenance. We are strongly opposed, however, to the current proposal advocated by the National Park Service to permit a developer to construct a new visitor center in exchange for long-term commercial concessions within the same facility—all to be located in the heart of the Battlefield. While we are not opposed to commercial ventures outside the Park, nor to the concept of partnerships, this venture, if allowed to go forward, will reverse more than a century of precedent in removing commercialism from the Battlefield. Indeed, since our organization was founded nearly 40 years ago, we have supported the Park in pursuing a clearly stated policy of removing tourist attractions within the Battlefield in order to restore a landscape more evocative of that which the soldiers saw in 1863. To this end, we applauded NPS efforts to remove the former ''Fort Defiance'' and ''Fantasyland Storybook Park'' along the Taneytown Road, just a short distance, ironically enough, from where the current facility is proposed.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To reverse this policy with the current visitor center would diminish these previous efforts and run directly contrary to the views of those veterans who sacrificed on this field and the millions of their descendants who share the feeling that this is Sacred ground. While those Union and Confederate veterans can't be here today, they are here in spirit, and I believe we have ample evidence of what they would say if they could be summoned from ''Fame's Eternal Camping Ground.'' We need only look to their spoken opposition to another major commercial scheme for the Gettysburg Battlefield put forward in 1892, when a group of investors called ''The Gettysburg Electric Railway Company'' sought to profit by building a trolley line across some of the most hallowed ground on the Battlefield. The Gettysburg ''Star and Sentinel'' reported that ''the vandalism of the trolley company and the stupidity and greed of [those involved] is the subject of discussion wherever a group of survivors of that battle meet.'' The Harrisburg ''Telegraph'' reported that ''Gettysburg will be made a show, a circus, simply to put money into the purse of a petty, private corporation.'' While the trolley line was ultimately built, the public outrage generated by this enterprise led to legal proceedings that ended in the United States Supreme Court. In that case, United States vs. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, the Court rendered a landmark decision in January 1896 asserting the right of the federal government to condemn land in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that this proposal is not about improving the Park, but about money—profit, and despite the way in which the NPS chooses to characterize it, a 300 seat cafeteria, theater and gift shop, not to mention potential revenues from parking, or related off-site concessions, would make this the largest commercial entity in Gettysburg—a mall on the Battlefield, if you will. It is, for us, the final straw when the agency charged with protecting sacred ground allows the moneylenders in the temple, or in a more modern context, a fast food restaurant in the middle of a cemetery. For it is to be built on Battlefield—Sacred Ground—and I repeat that because the NPS has made much of the claim that no ''major battle action occurred here.'' As historian Richard Rollins has demonstrated in a letter recently submitted to this Committee, this area, known as ''Kinzie's Knoll,'' was an important Union artillery position, and the artillery pieces placed here were ''instrumental in the repulse of the Confederate attack on the southern flank of Culp's Hill.'' Even so, the debate over whether the action here was heavy or not is irrelevant. It is ''reductio ad absurdam.'' Using the same logic, might we not also argue that a floating restaurant in view of the U.S.S. Arizona is okay because fewer men died in the harbor? In the words of former NPS Director Roger Kennedy before the late House Subcommittee Chairman Mike Synar at a hearing on the Seminary Ridgel Railroad Cut Land Exchange on May 9, 1994 (and I paraphrase)—''all the land on the Gettysburg Battlefield is equally important.'' Well, is it, or isn't it?
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our organization's concern about this proposal, however, goes much further than the issue of commercialization. As I noted in previous testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation last year [Feb. 24, 1998], we continue to wonder how much we can trust the actions and public statements by the NPS regarding the particulars of this proposal and its real consequences and benefits. As I noted then, the NPS has fostered a growing feeling of mistrust through a pattern of withholding information from the public, and since last year, with the release of the ''Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement,'' creating a document that allows the public to consider the merits of no real alternative except the ''Kinsley Plan.'' In fact, the Draft ''GMP'' is a seriously flawed instrument created, not as a true long range planning tool, but as a justification for the Kinsley proposal, which in our view is a clear violation of the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act requiring federal agencies to provide the public with a full range of alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, we are deeply troubled by these NPS actions—none the more so since the ''Draft GMP'' was released. This Park has had a history since l99l of poor or controversial management decisions—especially the disastrous Seminary Ridge/Railroad Cut Land Exchange with Gettysburg College, and in view of that legacy, I would think NPS Director Stanton and the Gettysburg National Military Park administration would want to bend over backward to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. For in these troubled political times, as all on this Committee well know—perception is reality! The general public and the press should not be forced to resort to Freedom of Information Act requests to get details on the planning process at Gettysburg, and surely the Park must seem disingenuous when it claims confidentiality under Federal Acquisition Rules using the same standards for withholding information is if it were sensitive National Security related material.
It would not be appropriate for us, however, to come to this hearing merely to criticize the Park proposal. The needs that led them to this point have certainly been legitimate, and we know that overall federal spending on the National Park Service has declined in recent years. But we believe the NPS has failed, for whatever reason, to present an accurate picture of its needs before Congress, and has gone ahead full speed with the Kinsley initiative despite a growing chorus of protest from the Gettysburg community and many in the Civil War preservation field. In fact, we believe a solution is at hand, and in watching public reaction over the past year, it has become increasingly obvious from the comments of concerned citizens that a consensus position is developing. That position accepts the need for improved facilities, and supports many of the goals outlined in portions of the General Management Plan, but affirms the need to explore some of the alternatives to building a new facility on the Hunt Avenue—LeVan tract. That alternate plan might include demolition/rebuilding of the current Visitor Center, the construction of a downtown interpretive center in the Borough of Gettysburg, and if the National Tower is eventually acquired, the development of appropriately designed and screened facilities on ground that has already been compromised. All of this would keep the facilities close to businesses on Steinwehr Avenue, maintain easy access to the National Cemetery, and prevent developing battlefield land that is still much as it was in 1863. These alternatives would, we believe, still allow for a partnership of federal, state, and private funds that would create a truly successful and community supported venture—in stark contrast to the current debacle.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, in our letter to Superintendent Dr. John Latschar on October 16, 1998 commenting on the ''Draft General Management Plan'' we urged him to ''give up his pride of authorship of this proposal and demonstrate true leadership by dropping the plan.'' In public statements since then he has refused to do so, telling us in so many words that if the current plan is to be stopped, ''go to the Congress or the Courts.'' We accept Dr. Latschar's invitation, and on behalf of all the members of the GBPA, we urge this Committee to halt the current plan and seize an unparalleled opportunity to turn public anger and mistrust into a true partnership ''of the people, by the people, for the people,'' so that the Gettysburg Battlefield, precious to us all, ''shall not perish from the earth.''
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 32 TO 34 HERE
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN R. SILBEY
Mr Chairman:
My name is Franklin Silbey, president of my own Washington consulting company. I spent 17 years working in the House and Senate as staff director and chief of investigations of three House and Senate oversight-subcommittees and committees. Today I represent only myself, but have been involved in the Gettysburg National Park situation since 1993. Then I guided former Congressman Mike Synar of Oklahoma and his staff to the battlefield to see for themselves how much damage the park sustained as a result of a land exchange between the park and Gettysburg College. That resulted in destruction of a unique historical landscape on the first day's battlefield, which today remains a repellent eyesore due to the unwillingness and inability of NPS to pursue this issue with the college.
I commend this Subcommittee for its courage and integrity in holding this hearing, which many have hoped for and some have worked to prevent. It is a long overdue airing of facts and policies that have heretofore never seen true light of day nor come to detailed attention of Congress and the public. I represent no economic interest of any kind, never have and do not anticipate representing anyone in future with economic interests in the park. I have never accepted any compensation for my work and expect none.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the outset, I wish to assure this Subcommittee that I am not here to engage in personality issues or questions of character or ethics of any kind. I am here to ask questions only a Congressional inquiry can answer. Such as:
(1) Why was Congress never approached on Gettysburg and its problems?
(2) Why the cloak of secrecy and denial of so many requests for vital data?
(3) Why the proposed creation of a very large commercial monopoly in tourist business in the heart of hallowed ground?
(4) Why the effective denial of due process through abuse of Federal procedures?
(5) Why what appears to be undue favoritism to certain groups and individuals in terms of fundraising or quasi-official advisory groups?
These are a few of the major questions I hope the Subcommittee will explore in this hearing.
This issue is not about patriotism, charity or idealism. It is solely and exclusively about lots of money. Almost two million visitors annually visit the battlefield, spending several hundred million dollars doing so. This is solely about a carefully planned, methodical effort by a tiny group of senior NPS officials to deliver a de facto commercial monopoly over that lucrative tourist business to a private developer. It has been justified by repeated claims that irreplaceable battle relics are being inexorably destroyed through neglect and lack of adequate storage facilities at the present visitor center. Should they succeed, they have repeatedly announced it will serve as a national precedent for further so-called public-private partnerships at other ''great places'' in our country under NPS stewardship.
At no time has NPS ever approached this or any other Congressional committee delineating this serious situation and making specific requests for funds to rescue relics and update facilities. Simultaneously, while single-mindedly pursuing this private commercial alternative, they have been blaming Congress, and by inference this authorizing Committee for this sad state of affairs. I wish to offer for the record quotes by NPS officials to this effect, including the present Superintendent. Who chose these policies and approved them?
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This process of seeking commercial development to the exclusion of other alternatives has gone on for more than two years, characterized throughout by a calculated policy of official agency secrecy, with a goal of exclusion of the public from any and all substantive parts of the process. Denial of Freedom of Information Act requests and long delays in making available even basic data have been consistent NPS policy. Why such information denial to the public? The chronology clearly demonstrates that a decision was made to create a commercial complex and visitor center at the LeVan site, and the GMP was drafted to justify that approach. Improvement of the existing facility was never offered as an alternative.
NPS had a commercial plan far in advance of obtaining any project approval. This was admitted by the Deputy Director of NPS at Senate hearings last year held by Senator Thomas (R) of Wyoming. Once NPS issued their Request for Procurement, they made it plain they wanted no part of the precedents of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. No public appeal to the nation. No fundraising effort on a non-profit basis. Certainly no approach to Congress. NPS officials have unwaveringly pursued one alternative only; allowing a private commercial development within boundaries of the park itself. Who dictated these policies and made sure they have been followed despite mounting public opposition and questions?
On page 8 of Senator Thomas' subcommittee report on the hearing, Mr. Galvin, NPS Deputy Director, is quoted as saying, ''There will be no commercialization of the park.'' When the developer submitted his proposal and it was accepted by NPS it was not released for 8 months, despite numerous FOIA requests from preservation groups, other bidders, media, local officials, individuals and Civil War groups. The original proposal described the facility he wants to build as ''a small mall,'' which turned out to be almost 150,000 square feet. Some small mall. When opponents finally got several inside sources to leak facts about the original proposal, they were deeply concerned at the size and contents of the facility. Kinsley was given a 30-day extension to submit his plan, the while claiming he had control of the tract, when in fact he did not. This $43 million complex included a retail store and 300-seat cafeteria plus an additional restaurant, a large bus terminal and an Imax theater. The ''small mall'' quote comes from Page 2 of the original Kinsley proposal, under the heading of ''Concept and Development Strategy.'' Why was the original Kinsley proposal not made available to the public? Why was it dated 5/9/97 and only released 7/23/98? Why was the huge size of the commercial development withheld from all who inquired? Why were vital documents withheld despite repeated FOIA requests?
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No park visitor center in recent memory had cost more than $10 million to build. Those the size of Gettysburg have averaged $5 million. This is a veritable Titanic of a visitor center. In the ensuing protest, and because of negative national publicity in Civil War Times and USA Today, NPS, the developer and his Washington lobbying firm, Hill & Knowlton, orally reassured critics the commercial scale has been vastly reduced, supposedly to virtual non-existence. This is not true. We have only their verbal assurance, and NPS has long since forfeited the trust of large segments of the interested public. Even to take such assurances at face value, the mall will have a 6,000 square foot retail store and a 6,000 square foot cafeteria, both of which would be the largest such establishments in all Adams County, with a comparable impact. The size of the mall is being dictated by the size of its commercial components. Why has the so-called ''reduced commercial element'' been downplayed when it is so massive and will obviously dominate all commercial tourist business at GNMP? How can this be justified one-third of a mile from where Lincoln spoke and Pickett's charge was repulsed?
Federal law strictly regulates private enterprise on park properties. It requires competitive bidding in almost all cases, and procedures that must be followed by concessionaires are rigorous and subject to public scrutiny. The new visitor center/commercial development has been structured as a ''partnership'' with a non-profit foundation to avoid those law and regulations. The foundation will use the imprimatur of the Park Service and hallowed name of Gettysburg to raise $22 million via charitable public subscription, and will use the security of rents from commercial ventures on the site to borrow another $18 million. This raises certain questions:
(a) Will the public contribute to build commercial facilities for a commercial developer?
(b) Has the ''public/private partnership'' corrupted the GMP process? For example, this structure has permitted the developer to commit $500,000 to hiring the powerful and costly lobbying and public relations firm of Hill & Knowlton, with those funds reimbursable by the public's charitable gifts. In turn, Hill & Knowlton has embarked on a joint effort with the Park Service to lobby Congress to back Alternative C. Hill & Knowlton and the Park Service have organized junkets to Gettysburg for members of Congress and their staffs at which visitors have either not been told of broad opposition to the Park Service plan or have heard it belittled. Indeed, Hill & Knowlton has prepared material for these junkets which state that ''A set of single interest groups has coalesced and formed a new anti-Visitor Center/GMP group.''
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The materials never mention that doubts and opposition have been voiced about the plan by such parties as the editors of the Civil War News, the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites and numerous Civil War Roundtables. The Opposition of the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association is dismissed, with egregious inaccuracy, because the organization is, ''opposed to the NPS' solution to the railroad cut.''
(d) What is the private partner really contributing? It will retain a professional fundraiser, who will presumably be paid from proceeds raised. It will borrow part of the $40 million cost of the project and obtain the rest from the public. Why cannot the Park Service work cooperatively with non-profits interested in refurbishing and expanding the existing visitor center and building a museum and conservation facility to raise monies needed? Would this not avoid a need to award the plum construction contract without competitive bidding and embed within Park Service facilities a commercial complex which will undermine many businesses in Gettysburg dependent on the Park?
We have received reassurances the developer will not commence work until all money is in hand, totalling some $40 million. The original cost was listed at $43 million. As secret negotiations progressed, critics discovered the following: The Davis–Bacon Act, dating from the 1930's, requires Federal projects to pay prevailing wages. A waiver of this act has allegedly been negotiated with the developer, allowing him savings of $3 million, accounting for the difference between his original figure and the present one. Organized labor in Pennsylvania has been in court often insisting on enforcement of this rule. Has a Davis–Bacon waiver been discussed or agreed to? If so, what does it consist of?
Numerous data requests are simply ignored by NPS. They stonewalled FOIA requests by invoking a new, specialized exemption created by Congress two years ago to the FOIA. NPS claimed Federal regulations prevented them from complying, as if they wished to release data but were forbidden, for national security reasons. Checking with FOIA experts, we found the exception to the act in question was solely designed to protect release of information in bids submitted by Pentagon contractors occasionally containing sensitive national defense material. Why such a transparent, elaborate effort by NPS to deny access to the Kinsley proposal and any information on ongoing negotiations? What other concessions have been discussed, sought by the developer and agreed to?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even names of NPS officials chosen to evaluate bids from contractors were considered secret and withheld from the public until Congressional interest forced their release. The same was true of identities of Wharton School advisers present at all deliberations and evaluations. No admission was ever made that these men, Mr. William Alexander and his business partner, John Rhodes, had a significant contract with NPS to evaluate such initiatives. Mr. Alexander formerly owned and sold a very large family construction company, is formerly Chairman of the Hershey Trust, is on its board now, and allegedly has business relationships with Mr. Kinsley. This is surely worthy of further serious Congressional scrutiny.
The Superintendent has repeatedly stated this project will not cost taxpayers any money. That NPS is broke. That NPS will not pay rent to Kinsley (as Mr. Kinsley had originally proposed). To support the Superintendent the Operating Proforma of Revenue Generated does not show any rent from NPS. But apparently this is not true, because on page 98 of the GMP we see the Park will in fact pay Kinsley for, ''building operating services.'' Rent by any other name is still rent.
What were our questions? We wanted to know if once built, the mall could be expanded? We still don't have an answer. What was the actual size of the commercial mall going to be? Would the present free parking be replaced with fees? Would the 10,000 square foot movie theater show commercial films on the battlefield after dark after the park closed? Last summer, meeting with the Gettysburg Bureau Retail Merchants Association, Kinsley stated this would in fact be the case. What is the true answer? Only Congress can find out. We asked if negotiations, once concluded, could be reopened and elements of the deal be renegotiated? Evidently they could. Without Congressional knowledge, consent, oversight or any public review. Is this in fact the case? If so, what are the particulars?
We were told Mr. Kinsley would claim certain tax exemptions as a Federal project. We then were told because it would be built on private land within the park, his project was immune from all taxes. The Park told us nothing to clarify the situation. We were asking about a very large commercial entity to be located within a quarter to one-third of a mile from where Pickett's Charge crested and from where President Lincoln spoke in the National Cemetery; within hailing distance of where 3,500 Civil War and 1,500 combatants from other wars lie buried. What are the answers? What is the true Federal and state tax status of the Kinsley project?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Eastern National Parks and Monument Association, a non-profit now operating the park bookstore, is slated to run the 6,000 square foot store planned for this mall. Would their lease be with the Federal Government or the developer? No definitive answer available. Who will hold the lease?
NPS offered repeated assurances that no ground would be broken until all money was raised. In recent private conversations, Mr. Kinsley has stated he will bring in bulldozers and tear open battleground undisturbed since the battle once he has commitments for $8 million, or 20 percent of required money. Is this true?
Mr. Kinsley has since proceeded to buy the LeVan Tract, an inholding of 45 acres within the park; last part of the battlefield totally unchanged from its condition at the time of the conflict. LeVan is the same public-spirited patriot who made available a large portion of the land on which the National Tower now stands. So he has twice blessed our nation with commercial deals of this sort, and profited handsomely.
Mr. Kinsley paid approximately $61,000 per acre for unimproved farm land which ordinarily in ADAMS County sells for $2,000 per acre, setting a new asking price for any commercial land needed to protect the park. In one move, this puts the asking price for all other such land out of sight, putting it out of the reach of most preservationists and preservation organizations. By that single act of mischief, if this project is allowed, acquisition and preservation of numerous battle related tracts has become impossible. NPS gives repeated assurances they will control the project. Many would like to know if this promise and that of the superintendent that no ground will be broken until all money is in hand will be enforced in writing by the U.S. Government. Can it? Will it?
Mr. Kinsley has bought or otherwise acquired control of at least two other parcels of land on Baltimore Pike, directly adjacent to his project. He is negotiating for acquisition and control of two other parcels. Developers buy land to develop. Once he has this project in hand and controls a large portion of land across the boundary, he will be free to seek zoning changes to allow a second belt of commercial development just across the boundary. Should the proposed application for Federal highway money succeed by the Friends and prevent any further development on the Pike, it will serve to further cement in and insulate the Kinsley monopoly.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Inside the Park boundary, the mall will be next to and anchored right next to the National Tower, whose owner as recently as last week praised the project and last year endorsed it while praising the Superintendent and NPS for bringing it about. This of course rescues his now ailing venture and guarantees him a windfall flow of tourist business while hiking his asking price for the tower far beyond what it once could have been purchased for.
The Kinsley Mall adjacent to the Tower will create a huge new commercial footprint within the park. If more development takes place on any ground he is tying up now, there could be a double belt of commercialism where now there is only the tower. NPS repeatedly claims the LeVan Tract saw no battle action, that no artifacts have been found on the site. Richard Rollins and Dave Schultz are acknowledged experts on artillery at Gettysburg. I respectfully call your attention to a letter from Mr. Rollins stating there was indeed critical battle action at Kinzie's Knoll in the LeVan Tract, closely associated with repulse of the Confederate attack on Culp's Hill on the second day. Rollins told this to two historians at the park and claims he was assured the mall would not be built there. He subsequently discovered there was a real possibility this would indeed be the case. I ask the Subcommittee to enter his letter questioning the project into the record. Why then did NPS walk away from negotiations several years ago with the owner of the National Tower? Why did Kathy Harrison and Scott Hartwig, the two NPS historians, assure Rollins Kinzie's Knoll would be left inviolate? Where is the list of and the actual artifacts excavated at the LeVan Tract within recent months? There is a FOIA request for this pending since last month.
Here are other things NPS has chosen NOT to do:
1. Immediately after taking over in 1994, the Superintendent allegedly unilaterally abandoned existing, well-advanced negotiations with the Tower's, owner for its sale to the United States. No explanation was offered according to a lawyer involved, who was quoted in the Gettysburg Times.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Eastern Monument Association had made an offer several years ago to lead a fundraising effort to construct at a remote site in the park a permanent climate-controlled building for storage of any endangered or deteriorating artifacts. This offer has been ignored and never publicized by NPS. Perhaps this would deprive the park of its ability to put on ''dog and pony shows'' claiming to feature rotting artifacts requiring a new elaborate visitor center. George Lower, one of the nation's leading Civil War relic experts, believes all or most of the damage done to the relics occurred far in the past, and has written a letter to this effect which I offer for the record at this time.
3. The Synar hearings revealed the true disastrous dimensions of the railroad cut land exchange.After then Director Roger Kennedy promised to pursue the issue with Gettysburg College which deliberately vandalized the ridge, NPS chose to walk away from the advantage and evidence the hearing revealed. In a private meeting he sought with me afterwards, Director Kennedy promised as he had promised Congressman Synar, that he would make good on his word to the Subcommittee in his presentation. He did not.
Why has NPS ignored the Eastern offer, and withheld such knowledge from the public and Congress? Why did NPS ignore its own public commitment to make Gettysburg College make good on its act of unique historical vandalism? Why no statements or actions from NPS?
In the past week there have been new developments spotlighting other aspects of this issue. One Civil War-oriented group, Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg, is, according to press reports, the subject of a criminal inquiry by Adams County's District Attorney. This involves allegations of false information contained in an application they submitted for $2.9 million dollars in Federal highway funds to be used along the Baltimore Pike area leading into the Kinsley Mall. This organization enjoys a uniquely privileged status at the park, and has been totally supportive of the Kinsley Mall, claiming their membership is overwhelmingly in favor of this commercial project. Yet the reason such support was forthcoming was because the question was couched in the following way; Are you in favor of a new museum or not?
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Friends enjoy a total monopoly on year-round access to the park for fundraising purposes. This is a privilege—enjoyed by no other group, given them by unilateral and arbitrary decision by the Park since 1995. The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, to which President Eisenhower once belonged, has been denied access to the park's facilities. Why? Why should GBPA be kept out and FNPG be allowed a monopoly on access for fundraising? Who made and enforces such a decision?
Money raised allegedly does not go into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Instead, it allegedly goes into a bank account solely accessed and controlled by the Superintendent and Executive Director of the Friends. To my knowledge, no audit of how these funds are used has either been done or is available to the public. Why? Who made a decision to allow such treatment of a considerable sum of money?
The Kinsley proposal involves construction of a large bus terminal for tours as part of and adjacent to the mall. This concession originally was granted to Tom Metz, possibly the most influential concessionaire and businessman in Gettysburg, with a similar Federal concession in Everglades National Park. He surreptitiously helped fund an effort to kill a previous attempt to build a similar project. The uproar over this exclusive franchise resulted in his monopoly being slightly reduced. Other buses may use his terminal.
Each Metz tour bus will come equipped with a Battlefield Guide at a suitable price, and it will not be cheap. The Guides, who of course support the mall, allegedly made their monopoly presence on Metz's busses a precondition of the initial agreement. A long-time President of the guides, only recently replaced, is Fred Hawthorne, also a long-serving member of the Friends' board of directors. I respectfully request that the Committee inquire as to how this arrangement was arrived at, by whom, and who in NPS approved it.
Last year the Park's full-time public relations and press person stated there were plans to close off auto traffic at several heavily traveled points in the park. This would make it far more difficult for anyone to drive their own car and take their own tour, a common hands-on learning experience today. This of course would result in many tourists being forced onto busses with guides. The park quickly backed away from the statement, but not before the cat had gotten out of the bag. Making main park roads one-way has already made it much harder for people to really see and get a feel for the battle on their own.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another area where there may have been significant abuses of authority is the park advisory committee. Such committees, with appointees approved by the Interior Department, have rules including three-year terms, reimbursement of expenses, open meetings and no conflicts of interest. At Gettysburg, this group was created to provide Local government and people substantive into park decision making.
I do not believe this is now the case. This advisory committee has served as a rubber stamp for the park and Kinsley's proposal.
Several committee members, including the chairman and vice chairman, had their terms expire, yet no announcement of this fact was ever made public, no replacements were nominated by Interior, and the people in question were simply kept in place and allowed to continue on as before.
The committee is also in the regular habit of having pre-meeting meetings, at which substantive issues evidently were discussed. This procedure is a violation of the Government In the Sunshine Act, which specifically forbids such abuses. I offer several internal documents delineating this situation for inclusion in the record.
Why are there pre-meeting meetings at which substantive issues are discussed in violation of a major Federal law enacted by Congress to prevent just such secret deliberations? Why does Interior evidently deliberately delay further nominations to enable members whose terms have expired to remain in place and make decisions as if they are still in office? Why does the Superintendent feel a need for secret gatherings before a formal meeting is held and the public can attend?
The superintendent, who seeks 54 additional job slots at the park in the event the mall is built, arbitrarily abolished the equal opportunity office at the park, claiming they could not afford such a luxury. A full time public relations person is considered a necessity, but no EEO person is. There was a meeting at which this policy was challenged. The Regional Director was present. This insensitive decision was enforced and remains in place. Why?
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NPS has made elaborate statements and claims about how many public meetings they have held and opportunities given the public, including mall opponents, to comment. While giving the appearance of correct due process, they have turned it into a charade and a mockery by repeatedly denying access to vital data without which there can be no meaningful public discussion on the merits. Simultaneously they negotiate in secrecy despite all protests and requests for information. This hearing is the first time opponents have obtained a forum where such questions can be raised, all information can be aired and protests heard by a body able to take steps to halt the project. At public hearings on GMP comments, people are allowed to register objections and raise questions, but there is no NPS response. No give and take. There will be answers, people are told, when the GMP is released. This is their modus operandi. Is this any way to deal with the public on an issue of vital importance to the nation?
Public protests are ignored. Locally, County officials have formally raised repeated serious concerns and the borough and all its elected officials strongly oppose this undertaking. Many are here today. The question is: do communities matter any more? Gettysburg and Adams County certainly do not matter to NPS. In the 3rd week of last October, the Regional Director, a key backer of the mall, could not avoid a meeting with a group of local business and political leaders in Gettysburg. For more than one hour she was confronted with opposition by an overwhelming majority of those present. Emerging from the meeting and queried about objections to the mall, she avoided the tide of opposition and instead said, ''I am congratulating Park Superintendent John Latschar and the Park staff on their efforts.'' George Orwell would have been proud of her.
The National Parks & Conservation Association endorsed this commercial venture inside the park. The long-standing national policy of this organization is to place all commercial services outside of national parks rather than inside. They believe if commercial services are available just outside a park, there should not be any inside the park. Yet for some unexplained reason, their representative here today endorses a project that flies in the face of the organization's long-standing national policy. Why? They officially oppose the Tower, yet formally endorse a plan allowing it to stay in place indefinitely. Why?
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present here today is Mrs. Angela Rosensteel Eckert and her husband Larry, a grand lady of the town with roots going back before the battle. Her family built and lived in the present day visitor center, amassing the largest collection of Gettysburg relics extant. It is a unique collection donated by the Rosensteel family in the nineteen seventies. A strict condition of the donation was that the collection be cared for properly and not be broken up or transferred. Mrs. Rosensteel has publicly condemned NPS's policies and demanded return of her family's collection because this requirement has been repeatedly violated. She has threatened legal action and is here with her attorney, John Fenstermacher, who is handling the case, pro bono. The NPS Director, who has chosen to be elsewhere today, quietly came to Gettysburg recently without public knowledge, to meet with her to try to dissuade and silence her protests. The Subcommittee might wish to ask the Director to appear at another hearing on Gettysburg to answer many of these questions.
Accountability is a wonderful word, if only by its rarity today. I have not touched on many other issues such as how much undisturbed battlefield land will be dug up to lay utilities all the way to the mall.
What we are seeing here, cloaked in self-serving rhetoric, is an agency largely out of touch with the public, heedless of dissent and criticism, arrogant in behavior and actions, oblivious to Congressionally-mandated rules and determined to create a massive commercial presence within one of our greatest shrines to sacrifices for liberty.
Wrapped in secrecy, allied with especially favored semi-official advisory and support groups who benefit significantly from NPS favor, driven by an expensive Washington public relations and lobbying machine, this project has been propelled by all the force senior bureaucrats running a little-scrutinized Federal agency can muster. Congress and the courts are our last hope. If they do not act decisively, NPS will do as before, admit a few small errors, plead for time in which to correct procedural abuses and promise to return with a better plan to answer all objections. This Committee knows that game and must not allow this strategy to be employed. If allowed, NPS will wait a ''decent interval,'' then proceed without advance warning. This is their mindset. They allowed the college to destroy the railroad cut on Christmas and New Year's Day, 1990, and raised no substantive objections and took no vigorous action. They will do something similar if allowed.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There should be no commercial development of any kind inside boundaries of the GNMP. It is a grotesque abuse of our principles, a betrayal of our heritage and desecration of the memory of the brave and idealistic men who gave everything so we could have our America as we know it today. Therefore, I most respectfully request the Committee to take the following actions:
1. Notify the Secretary of Interior the project is opposed in Congress, must not go forward and should be scrapped forthwith.
2. Notify chairmen of appropriate subcommittees of House and Senate of the Committee's position, asking they add their voices and actions to the bipartisan demand for an immediate end to this unacceptable project.
3. Order a swift GAO audit of monies collected by the Friends for the past four years at GNMP including how the money is spent and who makes any decisions past and present, as to its use.
4. Order the Inspector General of the Department of Interior to initiate a probe of procedures and actions regarding the Gettysburg advisory committee, particularly policies of closed meetings, financial decisions and lapsed terms of members.
5. Order a second inquiry into public information policies of NPS regarding this project and deliberate withholding of information.
6. Guarantee a public release of unexpurgated copies of these reports within 30 days of their completion. Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.
7. Request the immediate transfer and relief from duties of the present superintendent and Regional Director in Philadelphia.
Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have given me today to appear. The issues raised go the heart of how NPS handles our irreplaceable heritage. If similar actions are taken regarding other great places we trust them to manage, imagine what lies ahead. We have an opportunity to salvage this disaster . . . to prevent another railroad cut . . . another million-dollar toilet at Glacier National Park . . . another $300,000 toilet at Delaware Water Gap . . . another Stearntown. We allowed the Tower in the seventies. The judgment of history and the public has been harsh and merciless. It will be so again if no stringent corrective measures are not taken.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At every turn in this twisting road, when we have questioned the wisdom of putting commercial facilities on hallowed ground, we have been assured that it would be ''tastefully'' done.
So why not put a hot dog stand on the Arizona Memorial? Tastefully done, of course.
And why not a commercial movieplex right outside the cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach, where thousands of American GI's lie buried? But so tastefully done, of course.
Ralph Lauren donated $13 million to refurbishing of the original Star Spangled Banner. He didn't ask to place a ''tasteful'' store in the lobby of the Museum on the Mall where the flag is, or to have his logo ''tastefully'' embroidered on Old Glory.
Imagine what the old veterans of Gettysburg, now all long gone to their reward, would say if present here today. In spirit they very well may be. Imagine their words if they could tell us what they think of this proposal, those involved and the manner in which NPS has treated our priceless heritage their sacrifice bequeathed to our nation. Is this what they died for? Was it for such a result that they gave their all and created this shining, bright star of a land?
In October 1889, General Joshua L. Chamberlain's delivered a talk at Gettysburg. It is worth quoting in part to this Subcommittee.
''In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass. Bodies disappear, but spirits linger to consecrate ground for the vision. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream: and lo! The shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls.''
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Think what short though eloquent comments would be voiced by President Lincoln. The shame of the NPS proposal to plant this commercial atrocity in the Park at Gettysburg is the disgrace of our country. Even that it has gotten this far. I ask the Committee to do what is right for the public and future generations, not what is career-building for the NPS bureaucracy and profitable for a developer.
STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE NATIONAL PARKS AT GETTYSBURG
The Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg (Friends) would like to submit this statement for the record of the Subcommittee hearings on the proposed General Management Plan, visitor center and museum facilities at Gettysburg.
The Friends is the largest national membership organization with the mission of supporting, preserving and enhancing the historic land and artifact resources within the boundaries of the National Parks at Gettysburg. Since its inception in 1989, the Friends has preserved over 350 acres of previously unprotected land within the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park (GNMP); acquired and donated twenty-one lots of artifacts; and provided thousands of hours of volunteer time on a wide array of GNMP maintenance projects.
At the heart of the matter before the Subcommittee is proper support for the preservation and conservation of the land and the artifacts collection at the Gettysburg Park, as well as ensuring that citizens are able to visit the Park and garner a greater understanding of the epic struggle that took place in July 1863.
FRIENDS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Friends of the National Parks response in 1996 to the Draft Development Concept Plan for Collections Storage and Visitor and Museum focused on areas of concern for the GNMP. Our members in a response to a membership survey conducted in 1997, sent over 3,000 written comments expressing a wide range of views. These comments were returned by the membership with ballots asking whether they supported the proposal chosen for negotiation. Eighty-eight percent of those responding voted to support the National Park Service proposal for negotiation. The comments accompanying these ballots served to assist the Friends leadership in their continued monitoring of the Park Service process. We are pleased to see that so many of our members' concerns were addressed.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, this is not only about a visitor center and museum, this is about the entire General Management Plan for the Gettysburg National Military Park. We have kept our membership informed through all member mailings and through our newsletter.
We asked that Friends members comment to their organizational leadership, the National Park Service, to the Senate Oversight Committee and to Congressman Hansen as chair of the House Subcommittee. Our members have provided comments in writing and through informational meetings in Gettysburg, California and Pittsburgh. The Friends believe that the opportunity for public input has been extensive and that it is time to move this project forward. To stop forward progress of the General Management Plan, visitor's center and museum facility would disregard the efforts and comments of Americans who have participated in this process.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBSTANCE
The restoration of the 1863 landscape is an important step for preservation of heritage and for education of future generations. Where Federal and Confederate soldiers fought and died, we find a plethora of buildings and parking lots. This is not as it should be.
FNPG has sought grant money to help to protect the Baltimore Pike corridor by purchasing conservation and historic easements, under grounding of utility lines and removal of billboards. We seek to protect this historic corridor from development intrusion. In addition to protection of the historic corridor, such protection has been deemed important to the Borough of Gettysburg for economic reasons.
In previous testimony before this Committee one speaker noted that FNPG is the subject of a criminal inquiry by the local District Attorney relating to our application for TEA–21 funds. The District Attorney has informed us that no charges will be filed against Friends. We believe these allegations to be baseless, however, it is indicative of the strong feelings on both sides of the issue that the allegations were ever made against a project whose components are supported by both opponents and proponents of the Visitor's Center/Museum facility.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that the new interpretive themes contained in the GMP are excellent in scope and long overdue. We are pleased to see the Park's plan to deal with issues of causation, including slavery, and the consequences of the war. We are also pleased to see inclusion of the experience of residents of Gettysburg during the Battle. To fully understand the impact of the Battle, one must also understand the impact on noncombatants.
From an original position of cautious skepticism, Friends has stated its approval of the direction being taken by those involved in creating a new Visitor Center/Museum facility. Our members have been concerned about commercialism, size, placement and content of the new facility. We are pleased that so many of our members' concerns have been addressed.
We are also pleased that the Park and Borough of Gettysburg are working together on an interpretive plan for the town. This cooperation is important to the experience of all visitors to the Park.
Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg have been supporting the effort to preserve the Gettysburg National Military Park for ten years. During that time we have donated over $2.4 million to restoration and preservation of the resources of the Park. We raise money from our dedicated members in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The money that is raised within the Park is done within the rules and regulations of Director's Order 21 and is under our Memorandum of Agreement with the National Park Service. As such it is monitored by the NPS.
Each year an independent accounting firm audits the Friends finances. We produce an Annual Report that includes audit information and is available on request. Should the Committee wish to review our collections raised within the Park we would be happy to satisfy such an inquiry.
While FNPG understands and supports the desire of the Committee to seek ways in which such an NPS planning process might be improved in the future, we implore the Committee to allow the General Management Plan to move forward so that this precious heritage may be restored and protected in this generation. We believe that stopping this process, after extensive public input and comment, can only serve to damage the Gettysburg National Military Park.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PROGRESS IN PRESERVATION
The 18,000 members and supporters of the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg always has, and always will endorse those efforts we believe will preserve and enhance the resources associated with the National Parks at Gettysburg. The challenges facing the Gettysburg Park are real, and the threats posed grow more significant every day. Allowing this situation to continue is unacceptable.
The members of the Friends have demonstrated their willingness, year after year, to provide their own funds to assist in closing the gap between what needs to be done at the Gettysburg Park, and what the Federal Government can afford to do. Unfortunately, efforts like those of the Friends cannot by themselves solve this problem. New and innovative solutions must be created to solve this dilemma. The proposed partnership between the Gettysburg Park and a private entity is such an innovative solution. The members of the Friends support this approach; thousands of them have communicated this message clearly to their leadership and through their participation in the public comment process.
On behalf of the membership of the Friends, we urge support for the General Management Plan and the new visitor center and museum facility. We look forward to working on this and other projects that will support, enhance and preserve our nation's Civil War heritage for our children, and for all future generations of Americans.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. LOWER
Dear Congressman Hansen:
I am writing in connection with your forthcoming Subcommittee hearing regarding the General Management Plan proposed by the National Park Service for implementation at the Gettysburg National Military Park. I wish to express my concern over the planned Visitors Center and to provide some insight into the artifacts which the NPS has now on display and in storage.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am a lifelong resident of Gettysburg who for nearly thirty years bought and sold Civil War artifacts as The Gettysburg Sutler. Because of my expertise I appraised some of the country's most famous Civil War collections, such as that of the Dubois family of Atlanta, GA. I also performed some appraisal work for the Gettysburg artifacts and devoted several hundred hours of volunteer work to catalogue and display the Rosensteel collection. I am in addition the founder of the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg and was its first president until I resigned in protest against the Friends' financial policies, specifically its raising of funds solely to promote growth of the organization rather than to enhance the park.
It is my belief that there are a number of people connected with the Gettysburg park, both in and out of the National Park Service, who have a far greater interest in pursuing their own agendas and in enhancing their resumes than they do in promoting the well being of this park. I also believe that a new Visitors Center would be a vast improvement to this national treasure and, although skeptical at this point, am willing to entertain the concept of public-private partnership. However, I find it unconscionable that advocates of what is known as the Kinsley proposal wish to destroy not only the last piece of undeveloped land on the battlefield, but one which lies directly in the center of the staging area for the entire Union defense during the battle.
The assertion of the National Park Service that the new Visitors Center will display many more artifacts which now can only be stored is, in my opinion, seriously misleading. The best example of every weapon in the Rosensteel collection is now on display as well as all the other items of greatest importance to both armies at Gettysburg. Those weapons not now on display are for the most part good only for study and probably never would be anywhere but in storage. It is, I believe, also misleading for anyone to refer to the huge number of relics in storage without specifying that they are overwhelmingly bullets, cannon projectiles and shrapnel, which not only will not deteriorate but which are also abundantly displayed. There are in storage some items of local historical interest, i.e., furniture, photographs, documents and some uniform items, which would no doubt add to the display, but neither they nor any other items in the collection are deteriorating at a rate that necessitates rushing this project to the extent we are told it must be rushed. No relic currently in storage is undergoing undue deterioration.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Both the citizens of Gettysburg and the American people have too often been left with the legacy of ineptness exhibited by NPS administrators. I have known a number of them and believe them to have meant well, but even their best intentions resulted in blunders that we must all now live with. I refer, among other things, to the Cyclorama which NPS now wants to remove, the National Tower which must now be bought and removed, and the railroad cut which like the LeVan (Visitors Center) property, was dismissed as having little historical value, but was later admitted by then NPS Director, Roger Kennedy, to have been a huge blunder. Similarly, the deer were protected for years against any form of harvest by the neighbors of the park, but are now being slaughtered by the NPS for the well being of the park's farming policies. The people of this community who care deeply about Gettysburg as well as many subordinate NPS employees fought to prevent these NPS actions; yet, using the pretense of ''for the good of the resource,'' NPS administrators drove on, unresponsive to the voice of the people.
Choosing the right course of action in this matter will not be easy, but rushing the process with no thought to alternative ideas will serve only to add another blunder to the already overly long list. There are many good and caring people on both sides of the issue and plenty of time to listen to all points of view so that we can arrive at a final product of which we can all be proud. Above all, let's not destroy this piece of land within the boundary established by Congress and President Bush. Let us protect it from becoming another well intentioned blunder for future generations to correct.
Mr. Hansen, your Committee has the opportunity, and possibly the only remaining opportunity, to slow down this process. I have believed for a long time that if the GMP/Kinsley proposal is a good idea it will always remain so, but if it is another bad idea acted upon rashly, we will live with it for a long, long time.
I thank you for your interest in this piece of ground which I and a great many other people care about deeply. We need time to be heard and to develop a real plan which not only the citizens of Gettysburg, but all Americans, can be proud of.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would be happy to discuss this matter further with you. Thank you again.
STATEMENT OF DESCENDANTS OF THE NY 136TH INFANTRY REGIMENT
The Descendants of the 136th New York Infantry Regiment respectfully request, from the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the U.S. House of Representatives, that this statement be entered into the Congressional Record during public hearings scheduled to be held on February 11, l999. Our organization has a unique perspective concerning the Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park [GNMP]. We feel compelled to speak, not only from our own point of view, but also, for the veterans of the 136th New York Infantry Volunteers. These brave men defended the exact position of the current National Park Visitor Center in Gettysburg National Military Park, some with their very lives.
We have included photographs and human interest pieces from the men of this regiment, some of whom were our ancestors. These were the real people spoken about in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. We have included an account by an officer detailing the regiment's viewshed during the battle, maps of the battle lines the regiment defended, and comments and contact information for a few of us.
We feel strongly that the removal of the current Visitor Center and Cyclorama, and all of their associated roads and parking lots, is long overdue. Removing these buildings will restore the view down the battle line, looking south from the Visitor Center. The 136th NY lost 109, out of the total of 971 men, who became casualties of the over 6,000 men who fought in this area. These buildings should not have been built on the main Union battle line of 1863 in the first place. We are decidedly FOR the National Park Service plan to restore Ziegler's Grove and the Visitor Center area to its 1863 historical appearance. This is federal land and it is the duty of this government to fund the restoration of this hallowed ground.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Much of the lines of battle of the 136th New York are sadly not within GNMP boundaries. Steinwehr Avenue (named after General Von Steinwehr, who led the Second Division of the XI Corps, of which the 136 NY was a part) and the Colt Park Subdivision, were developed where men died, some horribly. Gettysburg veterans did react to the loss of their battle lines.
The first challenge from a developer occurred in the same year the park was created. A trolley company had constructed a rail line through the center of the battlefield to Devil's Den, despite objections by veterans of the battle and others, and they immediately brought a lawsuit against the government to block the acquisition of their land by the park. In a case that has been used countless times since as a precedent in federal condemnation actions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. ''that the government had the right, indeed an obligation, to protect such areas. ''Can it be that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country,'' the justices' opinion read in part.
Has the passage of time allowed some to forget ''what they did here''? The sacrifices made at Gettysburg, and the entire reason there is a National Park there to commemorate it, are getting lost in controversy. This Congress has in its power the opportunity to correct a great wrong, and at the same time, fund this project in a way that would make Lincoln and these veterans proud.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Stead Kaszubski,
Founder, Descendants of the 136th New York Infantry Regiment
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ALAN E. HOEWELER, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CIVIL WAR SITES, INC., HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Please allow me introduce myself, I am currently Chairman of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, one of the nations largest Civil War battlefield preservation groups. On behalf of our membership and board, I would like to commend you on the hearing you held last week concerning the current proposal to permit a mall with a very large commercial component, within the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Park. On behalf of our organization we want to express our objection to this project. As you may already know, Mr. Dennis Frye, the former president of our organization, with board approval, testified in opposition to this project, at the February 1998 Senate hearings. While I cannot speak for other organizations in the preservation field, I wish to formally express the unalterable opposition by the APCWS to this or any plan, to allow commercial development on any hallowed Civil War battlefield ground.
Although many of our board and membership believe in a ''Museum of the American Civil War'' concept at Gettysburg, we are disturbed by the National Park Service's unwillingness to make public what looks to be a preconceived plan. The secrecy surrounding the entire process is equally troubling, and has been from its inception.
As a former President and founding member of ''The Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg,'' I have been opposed to this project for any number of reasons. First, I am not convinced this type of relationship is good for the nations historic resources. Furthermore, our organization and myself also reject the GNMP and its superintendent's continued insistence that it must look to a commercial entity to assume its fiduciary responsibilities. GNMP and its Superintendent have demonstrated a total lack of stewardship towards this battlefield. Over the past few decades their obligation to preserve this historic resource has been misplaced. The proposed commercial enterprise alongside the already existing commercial eyesore known as the ''Battlefield Tower'' will allow for expanding intrusion on the very same tract of land not more than a few feet from the Soldier's National Cemetery where President Abraham Lincoln gave the immortal Gettysburg Address.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Coming in the wake of the controversy swirling around the GNMP and National Park Service's handling of the ''Railroad Cut'' land transfer, we are frankly surprised that the two parties should look to propose such a plan. As you recall from testimony given at your hearing and one conducted by then-Congressman Mike Synar in 1994, the NPS and GNMP permitted the bulldozing of an historic site simply for the purposes of accommodating a private railroad. To intrude again upon pristine, virgin battleground to benefit yet another private concern is a staggering concept at a time when we look to our government agencies to live up to their responsibilities to protect our historic national treasures. Must we again revisit the issues, not to mention the unnecessary expenditures of money, that we were faced with dating back to Manassas battlefield and its mall project?
Perhaps more confusing are recent National Park Service and GNMP actions surrounding the condemnation of the Yingling Auction Barn property. It was only a few years ago that the GNMP utilized the condemnation process to remove a new intrusion within the Park's boundary. This commercial building was purchased—after a process of appraisal and negotiation—for an inflated price and then removed. How can the National Park Service condemn one intrusion and then support another? We have to question the motives of NPS, GNMP, as well as others that support this project.
It has been said that the Civil War preservation community supports this commercial mall within the boundaries of the park. This is false. Of only a few Civil War organizations supporting this project, the most vocal is the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg. An organization about which there are far too many questions regarding conflicts of interest. This relationship and especially the Memorandum Operating Agreement between the Friends and the GNMP need to be carefully interpreted by Congress. That APCWS, the Association of Civil War Roundtables, and the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association oppose such a plan, I believe serves as a far better barometer of what the Civil War community truly feels about the project.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our battlefields are disappearing at an alarming rate. This project takes away from the many genuine efforts of preservation groups all across the country. To preserve our battlefields and, therefore our heritage, is a task those of us associated with APCWS face each day. We must raise millions of dollars to compete with developers who wish to raise the sites where our forefathers fell. To compete with people who can count the federal government as their partners is to call into question the very worth of work most people in the United States support.
I am appalled at the arrogance of NPS and GNMP in dealing with the Gettysburg Borough Council, the Adams County municipality, not to mention the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, and virtually unanimous opposition from the local residents. From the start, while president of the Friends, and now while serving as Chairman of APCWS, I have seen this project as a very bad idea. I have experience with the inner workings of all parties concerned, and as such would not give any endorsement to this private/public venture. There are simply too many issues that require honest, open answers, which have up till now been withheld from the Congress and the public. The battlefield and Borough of Gettysburg would be far better served if this project were stopped.
We certainly do not need another ''Tower'' on the fields of Gettysburg. Mistakes have been made in the past. To allow new ones so similar would be to do irreparable damage to the NPS's reputation as stewards of our natural and historic heritage. Those of us involved in helping preserve our national heritage ask for your direct influence in halting this plan. It was the veterans of that conflict who made Gettysburg their memorial to the struggle for American freedom. It is our duty to preserve their commitment.
Thank you again for your interest on behalf of our heritage. I would be delighted to discuss this issue with you or your staff at any time convenient to you.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 35 TO 60 HERE
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LETTER TO MR. STANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM MR. HANSEN
Dear Director Stanton:
I would like to thank the National Park Service for responding to the twenty questions I submitted dealing with Gettysburg National Military Park. Although some of the questions were adequately responded to, I still find that many others were not. As such, I feel compelled to respond to the Park Service response (dated April 2, 1999).
Questions #1, #2, and #3 are all related as to how supportive the public is of this proposal and that half of the Gettysburg residents are in support. Yet, the flip side is equally valid, i.e., half of the Gettysburg residents are opposed, as is the Borough, and the many other Civil War groups and associations. The point is that there is a great deal of clear and unmistakable opposition to this and the Park Service needs to step back and take another look at the proposal and the GMP. It is agreed that any project probably will not get 100 percent support, but having the Borough of Gettysburg and many of its residents in adamant opposition should send a clear message to the Park Service that there is something very wrong with both the proposal and the process used to get where you are today. Instead of being divisive, the Park Service needs to be forging partnerships with those most affected by their actions the local residents and the community. Moving ahead with this project in its current form will certainly exacerbate an already deteriorating situation with the local government at Gettysburg.
Furthermore, it must be mentioned that the Letter of Intent the Park Service signed with the Borough of Gettysburg is not part of the GMP; therefore, its mention in your response is irrelevant. In no manner should this Letter of Intent be construed as endorsement or support for the proposed visitor center and GMP.
Clearly, arrogant and self-serving statements such as those made by Superintendent Latschar that ''there's nothing in our mission statement that says we're supposed to look out for businesses surrounding the park'' are needless and unproductive in anyone's opinion. The Park Service's attempt in trying to justify this callous and contemptible comment is convincing no one, especially me. Statements such as these made by Superintendent Latschar are justly simply uncalled for and unprofessional.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Questions #4, 5, and 6 regard the GMP, DCP, and the EIS and EA which accompany these documents. Instead of fully answering the questions, the Park Service chose to restate their position. The fact is, in terms of timing, the DCP EA. which had different alternatives from the Kinsley proposal, was withdrawn, then the Kinsley proposal was selected, and finally the DEIS was issued. All the alternatives in the DEIS had the Kinsley proposal as a central component, except the no action alternative. Without debate, the Park Service had chosen the Kinsley proposal before the GMP EIS. Without debate, all the action alternatives mandated the Kinsley proposal. NEPA states (as a matter of fact, twice) that ElSs shall not serve to rationalize or justify decisions already made (40 CFR 1502.2(g) and 1502.5). Unarguably, the Park Service selected the Kinsley visitor center before the issuance of the DEIS. Clearly, this is a NEPA violation and is also counter to Park Service planning policy. For example, Director's Order 2 essentially states that general management planning (which the GMP is) will be the first phase in decision making followed by decisions for site-specific actions (which the Kinsley proposal is). Like NEPA, the Park Service has clearly violated their own policy guidelines in moving forward with and in defense of this project.
A primary reason the NEPA regulations prohibit the use of a predetermined decision in developing an EIS is so that a full range of alternatives can be developed and so that the public has a choice in providing meaningful input. This full range of alternatives is, in fact, the heart of any EIS (40 CFR 1502.14). By selecting the Kinsley proposal beforehand and making it part of all the action alternatives, the Park Service has effectively violated NEPA once again and has prohibited the public from commenting on other reasonable alternatives that could have been developed and, in fact, were developed in the DCP EA.
The Park Service states that the ''findings'' of the DCP were brought into the GMP EIS because it better served the public interest. First of all, I am not aware of any ''findings'' of the DCP or the EA. If there are findings please send them to me. Secondly, it is impossible to simply ''bring in'' or apply public comment on alternatives to a document (the EIS) which has completely different alternatives from the alternatives the public commented on (the DCP EA).
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Park Service also responds that the public has had ample opportunity to comment on the EA, the Kinsley proposal, and EIS. However, one document, the EA, was withdrawn. Details on another, the Kinsley proposal, were not forthcoming from the Park Service and only released via FOIA requests after the proposal was already selected. And the other, the EIS, really only gave the public one choice to comment on—the Kinsley proposal. Taken together, the way the Park Service proceeded makes a mockery of NEPA, public comment, and public concern.
In Question 97, the Park Service states that their policies provide for the construction of this visitor facility within the park. However, the 1990 law states otherwise—that the lands within the boundaries are to be protected. Thus, it seems as the contention of the Park Service is that policy supercedes law. I certainly do not believe this to be the case, especially when coupled with another Park Service policy that states if adequate facilities exist to serve the park visitors' needs for commercial services outside park boundaries, then these facilities will not be developed within the park. In the first case the Park Service uses policy to trump the law, then turn right around and disregard its own policy. This is not consistent application of Park Service policy and seems to me to possibly be illegal.
In the response to Question #9, the Park Service, in regard to Section 110 of the NHPA, states that Federal agencies must use, to the maximum extent feasible, historic properties. I am not sure how the Park Service can use the historic Cyclorama building ''to the maximum extent feasible'' and simultaneously plan for its demolition. At the very least, this is very poor planning on the part of the Park Service and, at the most, would seem to be a violation of the law.
Regarding Question #10, it was the Park Service, no one else, which stated at the Senate hearings that Mr. Kinsley, when accepted as the cooperator, would get the construction contract. The response also states that the Board of Directors of the the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation will select the construction company—not Mr. Kinsley. I can hardly see a difference between Mr. Kinsley, the contractor, and Mr. Kinsley, who is the president of the Board of Directors of the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation. The Park Service is playing word games and not being fully honest.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Park Service chooses yet again not to come clean in its response to Question #12. The question was—will there be commercial activity in the proposed visitor center or not? The obvious answer to anyone but the Park Service is ''yes''—there will be some commercial activity at the proposed visitor center. And, instead of stating the full truth that the food service being proposed at the Kinsley visitors center will seat the largest number of people compared to any other food service establishment in Gettysburg, the Park Service states that the food service is only ''5 percent'' of the space of the proposed facility. More of the same pattern of not being completely forthright.
With Question #14, the Park Service again skirts the truth. Regardless of whether the Peer Review Panel was specifically asked for their opinions on the appropriateness of siting a new visitors center facility on the LeVan Tract, the fact is that many of them voiced this opinion anyway. The Park Service ignored this in answering this question. In fact, at least three of the reviewers, Snell, Pfanz, and Rollins, have considerable concerns with constructing the Kinsley proposal on the LeVan Tract. Of course, the Park Service never admits that these experts are opposed to constructing the Kinsley visitors center on the LeVan Tract.
The response to Question #15, yet again, follows the Park Service pattern of avoiding answers which are completely truthful. The Park Service responds that, indeed, an estimate was conducted in regard to rehabilitating the Cyclorama Building insofar as only correcting health, life-safety, and accessability deficiencies. However, the estimate, conducted in 1993, did much more than this. That estimate was a package for the rehabilitation of the Cyclorama Center which, among other things, would remove and replace the roof, remove the asbestos ceiling (which was the cause of closing the building down recently), patching the cracks and treating the masonry material, and included a redesign of the building's interior for greater efficiency of visitor use and for better design of exhibit space. This was to be done for a net cost of $2.7 million. Of course, the Park Service never mentions any of this.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Interestingly, the estimate proposal also states that ''[i]n the last 30 years, no major rehab of the building's exterior has been undertaken, and significant masonry, roof, and cleaning/painting work is needed'' and also that ''[f]urther delay on mitigation of study and corrective action will lead to accelerated structural problems as interior steel rusts, cracks widen, and the threat of serious asbestos contamination increases.'' Obviously, serious problems existed at the Cyclorama Building since at least 1993, yet the Park Service never included rehabilitation of this building in their service-wide construction priority list, nor did they bother to tell the Subcommittee any of these problems.
Of last note, recent information has surfaced that the Park Service has received a copy of a letter from J. Carter Brown, chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, indicating his strong opposition to the demolition of the Cyclorama Building. In that letter (dated March 17, 1999), Mr. Brown concludes ''[e]very conceivable effort should be made to protect and restore this exceptional building.'' Although nearly two months old, this letter was never publicized or made known by the Park Service. Yet they were quick to send to my office letters of support for the GMP and Kinsley proposal by some noted historians. J. Carter Brown's sentiments were echoed on March 23rd by Terence Riley, Chief Curator for the Museum of Modern Art. Purposely withholding comments which oppose this plan, especially by people of prestige, is simply unfair to the public who deserve an unbiased assessment of the Cyclorama Building by Federal agencies. It is these sorts of tactics used by the Park Service at Gettysburg which has plagued this project from the beginning.
The simple and sufficient answer to Question #20 would have been ''no,'' a specific economic analysis was not done for the Borough of Gettysburg. The Park Service responds further that they were not asked to do this analysis and that this analysis would not have provided additional useful information. The fact is that the Borough of Gettysburg is so tightly tied to the Military Park it is difficult to separate the two, especially economically. Concerns of the businesses in the Borough were voiced by the business community to the Park Service time and time and again, yet the Park Service paid little heed. I was not aware that a community necessarily had ''to ask'' for a separate economic analysis. However, it should be obvious to anyone to include a more detailed economic analysis for communities which have such close ties to any park like the relationship exhibited by the Borough and the Military Park. Contrary to the opinion of the Park Service, I believe that a Borough specific economic analysis would provide useful information.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All in all I am not pleased with the answers given by the Park Service to most of the questions that were asked relative to the oversight hearing I held on Gettysburg National Military Park. In fact, most of the answers were incomplete and seemed to be written purposely to dance around a fair and honest answer. As a result, my opinion has not changed and I continue to strongly suggest and highly recommend to the Park Service that they either withdraw the current EIS or supplement the existing one in order to address significant deficiencies and inadequacies.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 61 TO 156 HERE