Prince William Forest Park Administrative History

By 1946 the original 1943 agreement was technically terminated yet the 4,862 acres appeared to be a permanent fixture of the Marine Corps Schools. Negotiations were now conducted at the secretarial level by the real estate and legal divisions of the NPS and the Department of the Navy. The balance of the equation was further complicated by the new lands acquired by the Army during the war. Approximately 1,138.62 acres of land wholly within the boundaries of the park were added when declared surplus by the Army after the war. [168] This new acreage was added to the negotiations for the transfer legislation. Where it might appear to Navy officials that the surplus land was nearly equal in acreage to the land the park was asking the Navy to purchase, this land actually added to the ongoing problem of administration and control of the Quantico watershed, making the acquisition of the 1900 acres of private land along the boundary of the park that much more imperative. [169] Nevertheless, all record of any verbal agreements with the Navy to purchase the 1900 acres appeared lost. Navy negotiators advised NPS representatives that "no useful purpose would be served by proposing legislation authorizing the Navy Department to acquire these privately owned lands for transfer to the Department of Interior." [170]

Negotiations bogged down. Despite the Secretary of the Navy's objections, the only change made in the drafted legislation was in the amount designated to purchase the 1900 acres bordering the park on the Quantico watershed. In a letter to Rep. Richard J. Welch, chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, the Secretary of the Interior struck out the words "sums as may be necessary" on page 3 line 12 to read "not to exceed the sum of $10,000." [171] This is difficult to explain as Secretary Oscar L. Chapman had previously estimated the present value of the land at $35,000 in his recommendation to James E. Webb, director of the Bureau of the Budget. [172] Apparently, the NPS representatives placed a premium on establishing a legal requirement for the Navy to purchase the 1900 acres for the park and were willing to leave the funding question open to future resolution.

Once drafted the legislation required a sponsor in the House. Judge Smith could be counted on to back the legislation as long as none of his constituents were adversely affected. Thus, upon Wirth's request, Lykes secured a letter from C. A. Sinclair, county treasurer, asserting that most of the 1900 acres to be acquired was "owned by Negroes" and of "particularly no agriculture value" with much of the land delinquent in taxes. [173] All political considerations thus laid to rest, HR 6246 became Public Law 736, 80th Congress, on June 22, 1948. Far from the final word, Public Law 736 has become the basis of an ongoing dispute between the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Interior. The transfer of lands provided for by the law has yet to take place.

Subsequently, the positions of both departments have hardened around the questions of money and jurisdiction. The $10,000 authorized by Public Law 736 was never appropriated. In the interim land values have appreciated far beyond that amount. Also, Public Law 910, passed one year after Public Law 736, prohibited the transfer of land to non-military agencies. Although Senate bill 1038, passed in 1951, effectively repealed Public Law 910, the non-military purpose for which the land is intended remains the Navy's principal objection to purchasing the land. [174]

Lykes left the park in 1951 still believing that the Navy had "elected to ignore their obligations" to the park as Public Law 736 was "all the Federal authority required to straighten out this matter." [175] Despite the existence of Public Law 736, to date all attempts to give the Marine Corps permanent legal title to the 4,862 acres, hereinafter referred to as the permit land, have been fruitless. The Park Service still insists that the Navy acquire the 1900 acres of privately owned land adjoining the park's boundary on the Quantico watershed, hereinafter referred to as the acquisition, before a transfer of title can take place.

Over the past 36 years negotiations between the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Navy have gone through distinct phases. In the period 1948-1958, the Navy continued to take a stand on the question of jurisdiction. The Navy insisted that it would be inappropriate for them to request funding for park land while "vital Navy projects were deferred for lack of funds." [176] Further complicating the situation was the obvious fact that the $10,000 authorized by Public Law 736 was woefully inadequate to purchase the acquisition desired by the NPS. By 1956, land values were estimated to be around $150,000. [177] Also, the permit land had come to be regarded as a "permanent part of the Marine Corps Schools" by the Navy. [178]

The impasse was broken in August of 1956 when National Capital Parks Superintendent Edward J. Kelly made a recommendation to the director of the National Park Service that a conference with Navy representatives be held to determine if it were necessary to amend Public Law 736 to "relieve the Navy of any obligation as a condition precedent to the transfer. . . ." [179] Subsequent negotiations resulted in a Navy Department request for a permit "pending completion of the action required to consummate the transfer to this Department." [180] The action contemplated was the repeal of Public Law 736 should it be determined that the Park Service no longer needed the acquisition stipulated in the Act. The negotiations concluded with the Department of the Interior issuing the Navy a revokable permit for the 4,862 acres of permit land and launching a study into the land requirements of Prince William Forest Park. [181]

From 1958-1959 the subject of negotiations between the Park Service and the Navy centered around the content of new legislation intended to replace Public Law 736. The Navy continued to assert that they had no funds available to purchase the acquisition required by Prince William Forest Park. It was the Navy's position that the new legislation should require the Bureau of the Budget to allocate funds to the Interior Department for this purpose.

Interior Department officials, however, continued to receive urgent requests from Prince William Forest Park Superintendent Ted Davenport to exert pressure on the Navy to comply with the terms of the original legislation, Public Law 736. Davenport was convinced that "a defense agency could secure funds for a purchase of lands much easier than a civilian agency." [182] His concern was made more acute by the realization that "the longer purchases are delayed, the harder and more expensive" the acquisition would become. The fact that several tracts within the acquisition were "being subdivided and sold for residential purposes" provoked still more concern for future "erosion and pollution problems." [183]

Frustrated by foot dragging at the secretarial level, Davenport took actions designed "to get their attention." [184] On September 27, 1962, he sent the commander of the Marine Corps Schools a terse letter proposing "to terminate your lease and offer the 4,862 acres for exchange with those owners of private land in the park," if action were not taken by the Navy to purchase the acquisition land urgently required by the park. [185] This letter set off a flurry of letters up and down the chain of command within the departments of the Interior and the Navy.

Inter-departmental negotiations took place between 1967 and 1969. No reason for the delay between 1962 and 1967 could be offered by the commander of the Marine Corps Schools who found the situation "inexplicable." [186] All the same, representatives of both the Navy and the Interior Department came to the negotiating table armed with facts to support their positions.

Navy representatives pointed to the extensive improvements made by the Marine Corps on the permit land (see Appendix IX) and the integral role these lands played in future plans for the base as justification for their immediate transfer. The Navy representatives proposed that the acquisition sought by Prince William Forest Park become a separate issue to be resolved by new legislation designed to relieve the Navy of any funding obligation. [187] New legislation was deemed necessary by the Navy Department because of the financial demands of the Vietnam War as compared to the now "utterly unrealistic" cost of the acquisition land. [188] The 1969 value of the acquisition land was estimated to be $1,400,000. [189]

The work of Interior Department negotiators was complicated by their dependence upon the Navy Department for assistance in several key areas. Navy assistance was considered vital in the preparation of accurate maps of the acquisition land, necessary before a firm land appraisal could be established. [190] Navy backing on any legislation presented to the Bureau of the Budget was also deemed necessary to secure approval before such legislation could be submitted to Congress. Further, de facto control of the permit land by the Marine Corps rendered any threat to revoke the 1948 permit meaningless. [191] However, the Interior Department could document the vastly increased need for public recreational land and facilities in the Washington metropolitan area. Purchase of the acquisition land was imperative to prevent development and secure these lands for suitable facilities and services to area residents. [192]

Given the logistics of the situation, Interior Department negotiators chose the pragmatic over the ideal solution to the permit land controversy. Prince William Forest Park Superintendent Floyd B. Taylor laid the idea of joint use of the permit land on the negotiating table to preserve a "healthy relationship with the Marine Corps." [193]

Once again, the impasse in negotiations was broken. A formal agreement between the Interior Department and the Navy Department over the use of the permit land took the place of any legislative changes. In May of 1969, a memo of agreement was signed by George B. Hartzog, Jr., director of the National Park Service and Frank Sanders, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Logistics. (See Appendix X for a copy of the agreement.)

Under this agreement the Interior Department received some major concessions:

• the exclusive use of the land area adjacent to the Breckenridge Reservoir, per Drawing No. 858-41002-B,

• help with a survey of the acquisition lands and a land appraisal, and

• the transfer of Navy land encompassed by areas retained by the Interior Department to the Interior Department.

The Navy Department netted their principal objective in this agreement:

• use of the remaining permit land until no longer required by the Defense Department, and

• an agreement by the Interior Department to draft legislation to amend Public Law 736 to permit transfer of the permit lands to the Navy.

Although the 1969 agreement did not result in the purchase of the much needed acquisition lands, the Interior Department did make significant advances in that direction. Navy assistance with land appraisals set forth in the agreement was a major step forward. For this assistance the Interior Department paid the rather steep price of granting the Marine Corps ownership of the permit land in all but name only.

The draft legislation created as a result of the 1969 agreement never came before Congress. It was rejected by OMB pending completion of a federal land inventory ordered by President Richard M. Nixon. [194] The idea of an amendment to Public Law 736 was also rejected by the Property Review Board designated by President Nixon to conduct the federal land survey. Rather, the Board recommended:

Take no action now to amend the 1948 Act. Continue the special use permit to the Marine Corps subject to (a) return of 348 acres to the Interior and (b) issuance of a permit for 54 acres now under Navy jurisdiction as parkland. Department of the Interior and the Department of the Navy would agree to defer implementing the agreement of May 27, 1969, until some future date. [195]

The recommendations of the property Review Board were incorporated into a renewed permit granted March 20, 1972, which would expire in 1982. (See Appendix XI for a copy of the permit.)

The issuance of new permits was delayed because of many discrepancies found between Interior and Navy Department maps. [196] Alarm Marine Corps management of the permit land aroused in area conservation groups further complicated the issuance of new permits. As predicted by NPS planners, Prince William Forest Park's location within 35 miles of Washington, D. C., allowed a curious public to discover its wild, unspoiled beauty. Thomas W. Richards, president of the Nature Conservancy, and Mrs. Jean Packard of the Northern Virginia Conservation Council demanded the repeal of Public Law 736 and the cancelling of the Marine Corps permit to the land. [197] These conservationists were upset that the Marine Corps had the right "at any time. . . to shut the public out" and that hunting was permitted on the permit land. [198]

Neither the Marine Corps Base nor the conservationists relented and the battle dragged into 1979 as Prince William Forest park began work on a general management plan. Conservationists vowed to push for the return of the permit land to the Park Service. [199] George Berklacy, Associate Regional Director, Public Affairs, of the NPS National Capital Region, conceded that

perhaps the conservationists are right that the land should be administered by the Park Service but we've had a very amicable and mutually beneficial relationship with the Marines. They have, in effect, taken care of the land for us. [200]

Berklacy, together with Prince William Forest Park Superintendent Robert L. Harney, was determined not to allow the land transfer to become a political issue. [201] Negotiations were opened between Gen. Robert H. Barrow, Marine Corps Commandant, and William J. Whalen, Director of the National Park Service over the return of the land and the means of protecting the south branch of the Quantico Creek from erosion. [202] Simultaneous night meetings were held at the park headquarters with representatives of conservation groups to address their concerns. [203]

As in the past, the logistical obstacle to implementing Public Law 736 was recognized and deferred to the secretarial level. Indeed, Superintendent Harney believed the purchase of the acquisition lands was a "dead issue" because of the dramatic escalation in cost. [204] The central issues involving Prince William Forest Park and Quantico Marine Corps Base officials concerned the conservation of the Quantico Creek watershed and the wildlife management practices of the Marine Corps on the permit land. On December 12, 1979, Col. W. M. Winoski, Assistant Chief of Staff, Naval Facilities, advised Superintendent Harney by letter that Lt. Gen. John H. Miller, Commanding General of the Marine Corps, had designated him as chief negotiator for the Navy to meet with Prince William Forest Park staff to resolve outstanding policy questions. [205]

A divergence of standards in wildlife management was at the root of the problem between the base and the park. Col. Winoski proudly pointed to the fact that the Virginia Fish and Game Commission had described the Quantico Marine Corps Base wildlife management plan as a model program. [206] In response, Jim Fugate, chief of maintenance for Prince William Forest park, characterized the difference between the Virginia Fish and Game Commission and the National Park Service approach to wildlife management as "the difference between a Ford and a Cadillac." [207] There is a direct link between the missions of the Marine Corps and the National Park Service which accounts for the gap in their respective quality standards for resource management. Whereas the Park Service is charged to protect and preserve the natural resources under its care, the Marine Corps must take a multiple use approach to the management of their wilderness areas. [208] Superintendent Harney conceded that the Marine Corps managed the permit land very well with the only controversial point being the persistence of hunting on the permit land. [209] Marine Corps personnel insisted that hunting was necessary to control game populations in areas used for training missions.

The latest round of negotiations ended with two significant agreements. The Marine Corps was issued a new permit to the permit land in 1984. The new permit deviated from the old 1972 permit in one key area: the terms of termination. Under the 1984 permit, the signatures of both the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior are required to terminate the permit. The acquisition land question remained a dead issue as Superintendent Harney estimated the total cost today might exceed $26 million. To satisfy the concerns of conservationists and park officials a joint resource management agreement was signed in 1984. (See Appendix XII for copies of both the 1984 permit and the 1984 resource management agreement.) Should Prince William Forest Park officials have reason to question the advisability of Marine Corps practices upon the permit land, a channel of communication now exists to resolve the issue. For example, the use of tanks in training maneuvers on Marine Corps land above park land on the Quantico Creek recently caused a siltation problem for the park. An exchange of phone calls to the appropriate Marine Corps personnel made with reference to the 1984 agreement was all that was necessary to end the practice and eliminate one source of siltation into the park's watershed. [210]

The ultimate disposition of the permit land title is in the hands of the Secretaries of the Navy and the Interior. Cost considerations have made the terms of the original legislation, Public Law 736, unenforceable. A suitable exchange of land involving the permit land and the Marine Corps land along the watershed of the Quantico Creek could be arranged. Control of the Quantico Creek watershed has been deemed far more vital to the park's ultimate mission of preservation than title to the permit land. As such an exchange involves the loss of turf by the Marine Corps in exchange for land they already have de facto control over, the probability of such an exchange is impossible to gauge. [211] At the park level it remains clear that the title issue is considered resolved and receives attention only when amicable relations with the Marine Corps Base appear threatened, thereby jeopardizing preservation concerns.