Assateague Island Administrative History

Congressional Deliberations and Local Developments, 1963—1964

With most of Maryland—outside Worcester County—behind the national seashore, cooperation was readily forthcoming from the state's congressional delegation in the matter of authorizing legislation that September and October in the 88th Congress. Representatives Clarence D. Long, Carleton R. Sickles, and Rogers C. B. Morton introduced H.R. 8371, H.R. 8385, and H.R. 8755 respectively in the House; Senators Brewster and J. Glenn Beall cosponsored S. 2128. Introduced pursuant to executive communication, the Long and Beall—Brewster bills closely reflected Interior's position. Representative Morton, in whose district Worcester County lay, was most directly affected by the local opponents of Federal acquisition. Submitted a month after the others, his bill incorporated "The Morton Plan—Assateague's Reach for Greatness," as heralded by a press release from his office. The "Morton Plan" featured three "stylized communities" of private residential and commercial development approximately 10 miles apart: the northern one, at the Sandy Point bridge, containing a cultural center for the fine and performing arts; the middle one, at Green Run, centering on an "Olympic Village" with sports facilities; the southern one, at Toms Cove Hook, Virginia, including a wildlife center with a museum and auditorium. Owners of existing properties would trade their holdings for lands in the new communities. [22]

The complexity of Morton's scheme drew fire from landowners and conservationists alike. The Interior Department was equally unenthusiastic. Retreating from the multiple village concept but not from the need to placate Worcester County by retaining some taxable development on Assateague, Morton introduced a new bill, H.R. 11117, on May 4, 1964. This provided that an area of up to 600 acres south of the Sandy Point bridge would be set aside for commercial concessions for overnight and other public accommodations. The 600—acre concession area was accepted by Interior as an unpalatable but necessary compromise with local interests. [23]

The Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a hearing on the Beall—Brewster bill August 11, 1964. As the 88th Congress would shortly adjourn, it was understood that new legislation would have to be introduced the following year, at which time public testimony would be heard. The 1964 hearing was thus reserved for members of Congress and Interior witnesses to present their advocacy of the national seashore.

"The drawing power of a national seashore at Assateague, promoted with all of the skill and good taste that is typical of all of our national parks, will attract visitors to Maryland from every State in the Union," Senator Brewster glowingly forecast in his testimony. "As the Nation goes to the Grand Canyon, so the Nation will come to Assateague." Brewster recognized the public support represented by the Citizens Committee to Preserve Assateague Island, organized early that ear under the chairmanship of C. A. Porter Hopkins, and favorable editorials in the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, and Washington Evening Star. To justify the proposed Federal payment to Maryland for the Sandy Point bridge of up to $1 million, from which the state would reimburse Worcester County for its contribution, Brewster declared that "the great majority of the traffic using the bridge will be going to the Federal park. [24]

Representative Morton appeared in support of the national seashore with the 600—acre concession development area in his House bill. Reviewing his original "Morton Plan" and its demise, he described the concession area as practical means of achieving maximum public utilization of Assateague and tax revenue for Worcester County. "The Department of the Interior assured me that this was a suitable arrangement for which there was precedent in other national parks," he announced. [25]

By letter, Secretary Udall had already recommended that the Senate committee amend the Beall—Brewster bill to incorporate the concession area. The sponsoring senators accepted the amendment at the hearing, and Udall testified to the local benefits expected therefrom: "The property that would be constructed, the buildings and everything, would, as is explicitly provided in the language, be taxable...by the State and local governments." He estimated that tax revenues of $30—35,000 after full development of the 600 acres would provide "a substantial replacement of the real property taxes that would be lost as a result of the acquisition." The only dissenting note was sounded by Representative Thomas N. Downing of Virginia, in whose district Accomack County, the town of Chincoteague, and the southern end of Assateague lay. Although Virginia had supported the original Interior plan for the island, there was concern that the proposed concession development in Maryland would promote tourism there at Virginia's expense. If Maryland were to have such a development, Downing thought, so should Virginia. [26]

A statement presented by National Park Service Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., outlined the Service's "preliminary development plans for Assateague, from north to south:

—The Inlet Jetty Area, adjacent to the Ocean City Inlet, would offer fishing and picnicking facilities with access by foot trails and boat.

—The Assateague State Park would provide for intensive use, with a restaurant, marina, riding stables, and other facilities in addition to the existing camping and bathing.

—The Concession Area, occupying 1—1/2 mile of beach frontage below the state park, would include overnight accommodations, a marina, outdoor game courts, and a recreation building constructed and operated by private capital under concession contract.

—The Lumber Marsh Area, with bathing and picnicking facilities, would be the first of three major NPS—operated recreational areas.

—The Sugar Point Area would be similar to Lumber Marsh.

—The Green Run Bay Area, at the end of the road down the island from the Sandy Point bridge, would resemble the two preceding but with the addition of a visitor contact station, marina, camping, and interpretive trails.

—At Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife would provide a "major development" near the existing restaurant concession at the head of Toms Cove Hook and beach shelters along the hook. A visitor center and interpretive services would be provided at the refuge headquarters near the Chincoteague—Assateague bridge.

On the mainland by the Sandy Point bridge, the seashore administrative headquarters and a visitor center would occupy a 10—acre tract. [27]

A month after the Senate hearing, in September 1964, the Sandy Point bridge was opened to traffic. Completion of the bridge sharpened the issue of public versus private development of Assateague. The state, having come down on the side of the former, refused to let Worcester County build a road from the bridge through the state park land to the Ocean Beach subdivision. Previously, Maryland health authorities had denied clearance for septic tanks on the island. Robert C. Walker, Leon Ackerman's former associate, appealed the state's refusal to allow water and septic tank permits for his planned construction. A court decision ordering the permits was appealed by the state but the Maryland Court of Appeals sustained the decision on May 4, 1965. [28]