NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 

Great Falls Park, administered by George Washington Memorial Parkway and located in northern 

Virginia, is a distinctive place within the Washington DC metropolitan region. It includes dramatic vistas 

of the Potomac River cascading 76-feet over jagged rocks, through a series of cataracts, and surging 

through the Mather Gorge. It also includes the preserved ruins of the Patowmack Canal, a designated 

National Historic Landmark that is a physical reminder of George Washington’s efforts to make the river 

a navigable waterway. Adjacent to the Canal ruins are the ruins of an abandoned settlement, the town of 

Matildaville, built to support trade along the Canal. The park is also located at the northern end of the 15-

mile Potomac River Gorge, one of the country’s most ecologically diverse areas that serves as a confluence 

for more than 200 rare plant species and biological communities. Each year, nearly 500,000 people 

including local residents and tourists enjoy activities such as hiking, biking, horseback riding, rock 

climbing, kayaking, fishing, picnicking, as well as the spectacular views offered at this 800-acre park. 

The General Management Plan (GMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the basic guidance 

document for managing Great Falls Park (the park). The purpose of the plan is to specify resource 

conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the park over the next 10 to 15 years. It will provide 

the foundation for decision-making and the preparation of specific resource and recreational activity 

plans for the park. The EIS documents potential effects that the GMP will have on environmental 

resources, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The GMP and EIS are 

collectively referred to as “the plan” in this document. 

The final GMP will be the first comprehensive plan prepared for Great Falls Park. The National Park 

Service (NPS) began the planning process in the Fall of 2002. Towards the end of 2002, and the beginning 

of 2003, NPS conducted public scoping meetings and sent out a newsletter (Newsletter #1) soliciting 

comments in order to determine issues and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. Issues and 

concerns that were identified included: access and circulation; natural and cultural resource management; 

visitor activities; park facilities; and visitor safety. 

Based on internal discussions among NPS staff, and comments received through public scoping, the 

following items were identified as the major resource conditions and visitor experience issues to be 

addressed in this plan: (1) How should natural and cultural resources be managed to optimize the 

preservation of both? (2) What are the most appropriate levels and locations for visitor interpretation and 

education in the park? (3) What are the appropriate levels and locations of recreational activities such as 

picnicking, kayaking, dog walking, biking, horseback riding, climbing, fishing, and boating in the park? (4) 

How should trails be managed with regard to use, connections to trails outside the park, and locations? (5) 

How should traffic and associated elements (parking spaces, time limits, etc.) be managed? (6) What are 

the most advantageous locations to support administration and operation functions with respect to 

minimizing resource disturbance? 

 

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 

The GMP/EIS process requires the exploration of a range of possible alternative future conditions and 

management strategies for the park. Ten preliminary alternative scenarios were investigated during the 

development of the GMP/EIS. In a newsletter (Newsletter 2), that was published in November 2003, three 

of the GMP alternatives were carried forward and presented for public evaluation. Subsequent to public 

and agency comments that were received, as well as additional review by the internal planning team, these 

alternatives were revised to two consolidated alternatives that were presented and evaluated in the June 

2005 Draft GMP/EIS. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

GREAT FALLS PARK, VIRGINIA y FINAL GMP/EIS ES.2

The Draft GMP/EIS was released for public comments in Fall/Winter 2005. Following more than 190 

public and agency comments that were received, NPS has revised the two alternatives as follows: 

y Alternative A (Continuation of Current Conditions) maintains the status quo in the park, and 

describes resource conditions where existing practices continue to guide park management. 

y Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) would balance the protection of natural and cultural 

resources with the provision of a variety of recreational opportunities for visitors. 

Description of Alternatives 

The two alternatives considered for Great Falls Park are conceptual and offer possibilities of how the park 

could be managed in the future. Under Alternative A, the NPS would continue current practices to 

manage the park, whereas, under Alternative B, the NPS would modify existing practices to pursue an 

overall goal of balancing opportunities for recreation while protecting sensitive natural and cultural 

resources. These alternatives are summarized in Table ES.1: Description of Alternatives, and illustrated on 

Figures ES.1: Alternative A, and ES.2: Alternative B. The alternatives are described in greater detail in 

Section 2.1 of this document. 

Table ES.1: Description of Alternatives 

 Alternative Concept A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Alternative Concept B: 

Preferred Alternative 

Description 

Continue current management practices. Balance the protection of natural and cultural resources with 

the provision of a variety of recreational opportunities for 

visitors. 

Preserve unexposed cultural resources by leaving 

them in place, below the surface. 

Preserve unexposed cultural resources by leaving them in place, below 

the surface except in a few locations where uncovering them would 

significantly benefit interpretation at the park and not damage the 

resource. Improve interpretation related signage at the visitor center 

(VC) and at resources. 

Develop an Integrated Resource Management 

Plan (IRMP) to protect sensitive cultural 

resources from potential vegetation damage. 

Also, adopt best management practices (BMPs) to 

protect cultural resources, especially those that 

are either listed, or eligible for listing, in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Continue existing policies to manage Matildaville. Develop a plan to stabilize Matildaville. 

Continue current policies regarding maintaining 

existing viewsheds. 

Prepare a Viewshed Management Plan to preserve, maintain or restore 

sensitive viewsheds. 

Natural/Cultural Resource Management 

Continue existing water resource management 

policies. 

Provide technical assistance to neighbors on water resource 

management, including stormwater management techniques aimed to 

reduce run-off from impervious surfaces and improve water quality. 

Demonstrate the use of these techniques within the park when 

enhancing the VC or constructing the new operations facility (at the 

existing maintenance facility site). 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.3 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

 Alternative Concept A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Alternative Concept B: 

Preferred Alternative 

Evaluate existing undesignated trails and 

eliminate any that adversely impact resources. 

Maintain existing multi-use trails. Allow access to 

pedestrians, bikers, and horse-riders into the park 

from adjacent trails/properties. 

Prepare a Trail Management Plan (TMP), in partnership with the 

public, to ensure that horseback riding, hiking and mountain biking 

activities, as well as access to key areas for other activities such as 

climbing or interpretation continue on designated trails in the park in 

a manner that is consistent with NPS’s responsibility of protecting 

park resources. In general, the TMP is anticipated to address the 

following: 

o Examine the existing system of designated and undesignated trails 

and recommend whether the designated trail system should be 

expanded, realigned, kept the same, or closed in segments where 

resource impacts are identified. 

o Potentially close specific trails on a temporary, periodic, or 

permanent basis, if necessary for protection of cultural and natural 

resources. 

o Focus on reducing the number of undesignated trails in the park, 

and adopting practices to avoid the creation of new undesignated 

trails. Designate those undesignated trails that are found 

appropriate to provide access to key areas. 

o Recommend best practices, especially in areas where trails are 

located within or adjacent to sensitive resources. Such practices 

could include requiring an access pass for specific areas or uses if 

necessary, or fencing off areas to avoid sensitive resources. 

o Discuss the reasons why the management strategies are necessary, 

including evidence of impacts if appropriate. 

Connect park trails to the Cross County Trail 

(CCT), Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail 

(PHNST), and Georgetown Pike Trail (GPT). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Continue to allow climbing activities on a firstcome first-serve basis. Prepare a Climbing Management Plan (CMP) in partnership with the 

public and the climbing community, to ensure that climbing as a 

traditional visitor use continues in the park in a manner that is 

consistent with NPS’s responsibility of protecting park resources. In 

general, the CMP is anticipated to address the following: 

o Examine climbing routes on a case-by-case basis and recommend 

whether they should be expanded, kept the same, or reduced. 

o Examine access to the climbing areas from adjacent trails. In areas 

where access is provided on undesignated trails, the park would 

explore designating the trail, or developing alternative access 

routes in situations where the trail adversely impacts sensitive 

resources. 

o Recommend best practices, especially in areas within or adjacent 

to sensitive resources. These practices could include the limited 

use of fixed anchors or an access pass for specific areas if 

necessary to avoid sensitive resources. 

o Potentially close specific areas on a temporary, periodic, or 

permanent basis, if necessary for resource protection, along with 

describing the process that would be undertaken if such closure is 

recommended. 

On a trial basis, prior to the preparation of the CMP, designate an 

access trail to three climbing routes (Gorky Park, Microdome and Flat 

Iron) to minimize potential for damage to globally rare Central 

Appalachian/ Piedmont riverside prairie located between the southern 

end of Overlook #3 and the Sand Box climbing area. An ‘access pass’ 

will be issued on a trial basis requiring all visitors to use this access 

trail. During issuance of the access pass, visitors would be provided 

with educational information regarding particular resource concerns, 

as well as safety information. This pass would be provided seasonally, 

in unlimited quantities, and free of charge. 

Recreation Management 

Continue access to Fisherman’s Eddy/AA Gorge 

for non-motorized boats, while protecting the 

Forge site. 

Same as Alternative A. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

GREAT FALLS PARK, VIRGINIA y FINAL GMP/EIS ES.4

 Alternative Concept A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Alternative Concept B: 

Preferred Alternative 

The VC would function similar to existing 

conditions, with educational and food facilities. 

Rehabilitate VC to improve exhibits and establish an educational 

component that would focus on resource interpretation, as well as 

providing information on safe and responsible use of park resources 

for recreation. 

Rehabilitate restroom facilities. Rehabilitate and expand existing restroom facilities at current 

locations. 

Visitor Services 

Maintain seasonal food service concession at 

current levels. 

Evaluate existing services provided by the concessionaire to determine 

whether to expand or reduce services. 

Check parking lots and inform visitors waiting in 

line to expect delays when Old Dominion Drive 

experiences back up because the park is full. 

When parking lots are full, suspend entry into the 

park and allow only emergency vehicles to enter. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Introduce technology that expedites payment and 

other operational functions at the entrance station 

to provide more efficient visitor entry into the 

park. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Traffic Management 

Continue to provide manual message board at the 

intersection of Georgetown Pike and Old 

Dominion Drive. 

Provide traffic and parking message boards at satellite locations along 

transportation routes leading to the park, as needed. Ensure that signs 

located along Georgetown Pike are sensitively designed in recognition 

of the road’s scenic byway designation. Provide a radio 

announcement that informs visitors about traffic conditions at the 

entrance station. 

Maintain staff offices at the visitor center. Retain 

USPP facilities at the current trailer. 

Demolish existing maintenance/US Park Police (USPP) facility and 

construct a replacement facility at the same location. Locate 

maintenance personnel/equipment and law enforcement staff offices 

at this replacement facility. Relocate staff offices from the VC to this 

replacement facility. 

Continue renting stables for USPP horses outside 

the park. 

Explore constructing USPP stables within the park, off Jackson Lane. 

Administration 

Maintain existing use of well-based water system 

with existing holding tank on Jackson Lane. 

Maintain existing use of well-based water system with an expanded 

holding tank on Jackson Lane. If necessary in the future, explore 

bringing public water to the park’s facilities. 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.5 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

 

Figure ES.1: Alternative A (Continue Current Management Practices) 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

GREAT FALLS PARK, VIRGINIA y FINAL GMP/EIS ES.6

 

Figure ES.2: Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.7 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

Specific resources and values, called impact topics, were used to focus the planning process and the 

assessment of potential consequences of the alternatives. The criteria used to identify these impact topics 

include the following: resources cited in the establishing legislation for the park; resources critical to 

maintaining the significance and character of the park; resources recognized as important by laws or 

regulations; and values of concern to the public during scoping. 

The resource areas that were assessed in this plan, and are potentially affected by the proposed alternatives, 

are summarized in Table ES.2: Summary of Impacts and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this 

document. 

Table ES.2: Summary of Impacts 

Impacts of Alternative A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Impacts of Alternative B : 

Preferred Alternative 

No impacts on surrounding land uses. Potential minor, short-term adverse impacts on 

surrounding uses from potential simultaneous construction 

activities within the park and construction of proposed 

regional trails outside the park. 

Land uses within the park function similar to existing 

conditions. 

Land uses within the park function similar to existing 

conditions. 

Minimal visitation change anticipated in the short term. 

Over the long term, potential adverse impact from increase 

in visitation due to regional increase in population. 

Minimal visitation change anticipated in the short-term. 

Over the long term, potential adverse impact from increase 

in visitation due to regional increase in population. 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Conditions 

Minor, short-term impacts on visitors due to renovation of 

VC and restrooms. However, the long-term impacts would 

be positive. 

Minor positive impact on visitor experience due to 

improved orientation and reduction of user conflicts 

resulting from improved trail signage. 

No impacts on neighboring population and neighboring 

socio-economic conditions. 

No cumulative impacts on land use and socio-economic 

resources are anticipated. 

Minor, short-term adverse impacts on visitors due to 

renovation of VC and restrooms, as well as 

demolition/construction activities at the maintenance 

facility. 

Positive impact on visitor experience due to: expansion of 

interpretive programs at the VC; and increased 

interpretation of Matildaville and other resources. 

Potential impacts on trail users would be determined 

during the preparation of the Trails Management Plan 

(TMP). In accordance with NPS Management Polices, the 

park may have to close specific areas on a temporary or 

permanent basis to prevent adverse impacts on natural and 

cultural resources. The TMP will provide guidance in 

determining unacceptable levels of impacts to park 

resources or values, and will identify which designated or 

undesignated trails will be modified. The park will work 

with the public to prepare the TMP and to develop 

measures that minimize any adverse impacts on trail use. 

Potential impacts on climbers would be determined during 

the preparation of the Climbing Management Plan (CMP). 

The park will work with the public to prepare the CMP and 

to develop measures that minimize any adverse impacts. 

Potential positive impact on emergency access due to 

reduced back-ups along Old Dominion Drive resulting 

from technological improvements at the entrance station, 

message boards and radio announcements. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

GREAT FALLS PARK, VIRGINIA y FINAL GMP/EIS ES.8

Impacts of Alternative A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Impacts of Alternative B : 

Preferred Alternative 

Potential positive impact on cultural resources from 

development of an IRMP and adoption of BMPs. 

Additional protection from practices such as adding fences 

along trails adjacent to sensitive resources are anticipated 

to result in a positive impact. 

Positive impact due to elimination of undesignated trails in 

conflict areas. 

Potential adverse impact due to continued trail use for 

horseback riding in the vicinity of sensitive resources.

Potential positive impacts due to: 

• Preparation of a TMP that would eliminate 

undesignated trails in conflict areas, restrict new 

undesignated trails and explore recommend best 

practices such as adding fences along trails adjacent to 

sensitive resources; 

• Creation of an education component at the VC focused 

on responsible use of park resources for recreation; 

• Continued preservation of buried ruins; 

• Plan to stabilize/protect Matildaville; and, 

• Preparation of an IRMP and adoption of BMPs. 

Cultural Resources 

No change to existing viewsheds. 

No cumulative impacts on cultural resources are 

anticipated. 

A positive impact due to preparation of a Viewshed 

Management Plan that would identify policies for 

preserving/restoring important scenic views. 

Potential positive impact at the park entrance due to new 

facility at location of maintenance building. 

No cumulative impacts on cultural resources are 

anticipated. 

Natural Environment 

No impacts on geophysical resources. 

The VC and two northern parking lots would continue to 

function in the 100-year floodplain. 

Existing trails would continue to experience erosionrelated impacts from current uses. 

Potential positive impact on natural resources from 

development of an Integrated Resource Management Plan 

and Best Management Practices. 

Additional protection from practices such as adding fences 

along trails adjacent to sensitive resources are anticipated 

to result in a positive impact. 

Positive impact due to elimination of undesignated trails in 

conflict areas. 

Potential adverse impact due to continued trail use for 

horseback riding in the vicinity of sensitive resources. 

Potential minor adverse impact on vegetation if stables and 

paddock area for USPP horses are located near Jackson 

Lane. 

Potential minor adverse if portions of the new operations 

facility are located within the 100-year floodplain. In 

accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the 

amount of impervious surface within the floodplain would 

be kept the same as current conditions. 

Potential positive impact due to: 

• Creation of an education component at the VC focused 

to provide classes/ information about responsible use of 

park resources for recreation. 

• Enhanced resource interpretation. 

• Designating a trail to access area between Overlook #3 

and the Sand Box climbing area, and issuance of an 

access pass on a trial basis. 

• Preparation of a CMP that would recommend 

recreational practices in areas where climbing occurs 

adjacent to sensitive resources. 

• Preparation of a TMP that would recommend 

elimination of undesignated trails, as well as redesign 

designated trails, in areas where these adversely impact 

sensitive resources. 

• Use of BMPs in the construction of the new replacement 

facility to reduce stormwater run-off and improve water 

quality. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.9 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

 

Impacts of Alternative A: 

Continuation of Current Conditions 

Impacts of Alternative B : 

Preferred Alternative 

Potential minor positive impact on localized air quality due 

to reduction in vehicular back-ups resulting from 

technological improvements at the entrance station. 

Minor short-term adverse impacts on air quality due to 

demolition of maintenance facility and construction of 

new replacement facility. 

Potential minor positive impact on localized air quality due 

to reduction in vehicular back-ups resulting from 

technological improvements at the entrance station. 

Temporary, minor short-term adverse impact from noise 

due to renovation of the VC. 

Minor short-term adverse impact from noise due to 

demolition of maintenance facility and construction of new 

replacement facility. 

Natural Environment (cont.) 

Potential adverse cumulative impacts from additional 

traffic or usage due to population growth in the region. 

Potential temporary cumulative impacts due to 

construction activities within the park and 

construction of trails segments outside the park for the 

CCT, PHNST, & GPT. 

Transportation System 

Continued minor adverse impact on visitor access when 

parking lots are full and entry into the park is suspended. 

Continued adverse impact on properties along Old 

Dominion Drive when traffic to park is backed up. 

Positive impact on visitor access to the park due to 

technological improvements at the entrance station. 

Potential adverse cumulative impacts from additional 

traffic due to population growth in the region. 

Continued minor adverse impact on visitor access when 

parking lots are full and entry into the park is suspended. 

Continued adverse impact on properties along Old 

Dominion Drive when traffic to park is backed up. 

Positive impact on visitor access to the park due to 

technological improvements at the entrance station. 

Potential positive impact on vehicular access due to 

proposed dynamic message boards/radio announcement. 

Potential temporary cumulative impacts due to 

construction-related vehicles on area roadways and from 

additional traffic due to population growth in the region. 

Site Utilities 

Negligible impacts on water and sanitary sewer systems due 

to improvements to existing restrooms.

Negligible impacts on water and sanitary sewer systems due 

to improvements to existing restrooms. 

Positive impact on water supply from expanded water tank 

off Jackson Lane. 

 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

This section defines all of the Management Prescriptions that would be applied to Great Falls Park under 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). The management prescriptions define the desired resource 

conditions and visitor experiences, including the appropriate kinds and levels of management, use, and 

development that would be applicable to the park. Under Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), Great Falls 

Park would consist of four management prescription zones – Canal Zone, Cultural and Natural Zone, 

Mather Gorge Zone, and Developed Zone. The four management prescriptions are summarized in Table 

ES.3: Management Prescriptions under Alternative B, and illustrated on Figure 2.3 (Alternative B - 

Application of Management Prescriptions), on Page 2.27 in Chapter 2. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

GREAT FALLS PARK, VIRGINIA y FINAL GMP/EIS ES.10

Table ES.3: Management Prescriptions under Alternative B

Management 

Prescription 

 

Concept 

Canal Zone The Canal Zone would include those areas of Great Falls Park that contain remnants of the 

historic Patowmack Canal and related structural features, including Matildaville. This zone 

would be managed with the principal focus being the preservation of historic canal 

resources. Visitor use would be limited to staying on maintained trails and learning about 

canal features and ruins from brochures, printed materials, and exhibit panels. 

Cultural and Natural 

Zone 

The Cultural and Natural Zone would be those areas of the park that have any archeological, 

cultural, or ethnographic resources related to the park’s prehistoric and historic periods, as 

well as those areas of the park that have any natural resources related to the diversity of 

fauna and flora in the Great Falls of the Potomac region. This zone would be managed with 

the primary goal of preserving a variety of cultural/natural resources, some of which include 

unexcavated archeological sites, the Old Graveyard, the Native American Indian Stout site, 

wetland areas, wildlife habitats and areas containing rare plant communities. Visitor access 

and use would be regulated and mainly dependent upon cultural/natural resource 

preservation needs. 

Mather Gorge Zone This zone would be located within Mather Gorge of the Potomac River, including the 

adjacent cliffs and shoreline. The zone would be managed to mainly preserve important 

cultural and natural resources and to protect employees and visitors. The cliffs, Gorge, and 

river have inherent natural dangers and are popular areas for recreational users who must 

have special skills (i.e., white water kayaking, rafting, and technical rock climbing). Visitors 

would be restricted to designated special use areas and alerted to potentially hazardous 

conditions and dangerous locations. 

Development Zone This zone is where administrative, maintenance, parking, and visitor facilities for Great Falls 

Park would be located. The developments in this zone serve the needs of park management 

and park visitors (i.e., maintenance facility, park water system, and VC). These 

developments would be located to minimize impacts on cultural, ethnographic, and natural 

resources in the park and provide basic visitor services. The public use areas of this zone 

would receive high visitation on a seasonal basis and other areas within this zone would be 

restricted to official use only. 

CONCLUSION 

The park has selected Alternative B as its Preferred Alternative. This alternative is also identified as the 

environmentally preferred alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of National 

Environmental Policy Act. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances the 

historic, cultural, and natural resources in the area where the proposed action is to take place.”1

 

By protecting the sensitive natural and cultural resources while also providing opportunities to recreate 

under Alternative B, the park would meet its responsibility as a “trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations;” assure “for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings;” attain “the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of 

health or safety;” and, preserve “important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage.”2

 

1

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 1981 2

 Ibid.