Final 

Management Plan 

September 2004 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

FORT CIRCLE PARKS 

Washington, D.C. 

United States Department of the Interior ● National Park Service 

iii

SUMMARY 

The Fort Circle Parks consist of parts of three 

Washington, D.C., area National Park Service 

(NPS) units — George Washington Memorial 

Parkway, Rock Creek Park, and National Capital 

Parks–East. These parks contain Civil War 

earthworks that originally were to have been 

connected by a Fort Circle Drive in accordance 

with the 1902 McMillan Commission Report. 

Although begun, the drive never was completed, 

and the forts and parcels of land purchased for 

the drive were divided among the three parks to 

manage. 

Although the Fort Circle Drive was never completed, the importance of the historic earthworks 

and the greenbelt of parks along the ridge surrounding the city make this a significant openspace element in the nation’s capital. 

The park sites contain the remains of forts, batteries, and rifle trenches that deterred the invasion of the nation’s capital during the Civil War, 

including the remains of forts that were engaged 

in the Battle of Fort Stevens, the only battle that 

took place in the District of Columbia. 

This plan provides broad direction for the use, 

management, and development of the Fort Circle 

Parks. An earlier plan, the Fort Circle Parks 

Master Plan of 1968, was developed to provide 

similar guidance, but it never was fully implemented. 

The focus of this document is on managing cultural and natural resources, visitor use, recreation, interpretation, and education. The draft 

plan presented three alternatives and analyzed 

the consequences of each alternative. Following 

review by the public and various agencies, the 

National Park Service concluded that combining 

alternatives 2 and 3 into a new preferred alternative would be the best course of action. A finding of no significant impact was then prepared, 

and the provisions of the preferred alternative 

became the plan described herein. 

The greenbelt of public space provided by the 

parks enhances the aesthetics of the nation’s 

capital and the quality of life for its citizens. 

These areas have become part of the cityscape 

and now serve as community parks. 

Significant natural features are preserved in the 

Fort Circle Parks, including mature hardwood 

forests, geologic and aquatic resources, and 

important habitat for plants and animals that are 

unusual in an urban setting. Natural resources 

will be managed to maintain the greenbelt 

around the city for its natural, cultural, and 

scenic values. 

The management of the Fort Circle Parks will 

continue to be divided among the three parks, 

but funding and staffing needs will be coordinated among the parks to ensure that the level of 

maintenance, facilities, and interpretation will be 

similar across park boundaries. The three superintendents will coordinate efforts to develop a 

Fort Circle Parks logo and to install similar 

signs, street furniture, and interpretive materials 

to let visitors know when they are in the Fort 

Circle Parks. 

Park management will focus on both cultural 

resources and recreation. The individual parks 

will tell the stories of the Civil War defenses of 

Washington and how the nation’s capital was 

protected from attack. Visitors will be able to 

make personal connections with the historic 

events these sites commemorate. 

The National Park Service will manage recreation and offer interpretation and educational 

programs so that all visitors can experience the 

park resources in ways compatible with protecting significant cultural and natural resources. 

Recreational opportunities and facilities will be 

improved. A new trail will be developed to 

connect the historic earthworks and link most of 

the fort sites. Brochures and interpretive signs 

will guide the way, enhancing visitor awareness 
SUMMARY

iv

of the historic importance of these cultural 

resources. 

Bicycle use will be limited. A visitor center will 

be developed in the vicinity of Fort Stevens to 

offer orientation and interpretation. 

An education center at Fort Dupont will offer 

programs in cultural history, natural resources, 

and environmental education. 

More site-specific analyses will be needed as 

actions are undertaken. 
v 

CONTENTS

Context for the Plan

Purpose of and Need for the Plan 1

Purpose 1

Need 1

National Capital Planning Commission Policies 2

Legislation 2

Introduction 6

The Fort Circle 6

National Park Service Sites 6

Sites Outside NPS Ownership 6

Previous Planning Efforts 6

Purpose and Significance 6

Interpretive Themes 6

Desired Visitor Experience 6

Desired Resource Conditions 6

Planning Issues and Challenges 6

Cultural Resource Issues 6

Natural Resource Issues 6

Visitor Use Issues 6

Park Administration/Operations Issues and Challenges 6

Issues Beyond the Scope of this Plan 6

Zoning and Basic Strategies

Zoning 6

Introduction 6

Potential Management Prescriptions 6

Cultural Resource Zone 6

Connecting Corridor Zone 6

Recreation Zone 6

Natural Resource Zone 6

Visitor Services Zone 6

Special Use Zone 6

Administrative Zone 6

Basic Management Strategies 6

Preservation Planning 6

Historic Resource Study 6

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 6

Cultural Landscape Report 6

Archeological Inventory and Evaluation 6

Visitor Use Study 6

Carrying Capacity 6

Safety 6

Access for Visitors with Disabilities 6

The Plan

Overview 6

Management Actions 6

Cultural Resources 6

Natural Resources 6

Recreation 6

Visitor Use and Development 6
CONTENTS

vi

Park Management and Operations 6

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed Further 6

Overview 6

Changing the Name 6

Establishing the Fort Drive 6

Developing a Continuous Bicycle/Foot Trail 6

Restoring or Reconstructing Forts 6

Establishing a Separate NPS Unit 6

Adding a Major Visitor Center 6

Appendixes / References / Study Team

Appendixes 

 A: Legislation 6

 B: Compliance with Federal and State Laws, Executive Orders, and Regulations 6

 C: Civil War Defenses of Washington Fort Sites Outside NPS Ownership 6

 D: Cost Estimates 6

 E: Fort Circle Parks — National Park Service Sites 6

References Cited 6

Preparers of Document 6

Maps 

Vicinity 4 

Historic Map of 1865 5 

The Plan 9 

The Plan, section 1 29 

The Plan, section 2 31 

Battle of Fort Stevens Walking Tour 33 

The Plan, section 3 35 

The Plan, section 4 37 
CONTEXT

FOR

THE PLAN

1

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this Management Plan for the 

Fort Circle Parks of Washington, D.C. is to 

provide a unified management concept for significant historic resources associated with the 

Civil War defense of Washington that will allow 

these resources to be preserved for future generations and interpreted in a coherent, easily 

understandable manner. The plan will guide the 

management of the parks over the next 10–15 

years. This includes the management of cultural 

and natural resources, visitor use and development, park operations, and land use. 

The plan was begun with the understanding that 

the Fort Circle Parks would be evaluated for 

inclusion in the national park system as a separately authorized unit. That option is briefly 

explained in the section on “Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed Further,” page 6.

 . . . to provide for the preservation and 

improvement of certain spots of 

exceptional beauty, like the chain of 

abandoned forts encircling the District . . . 

(1902, Senate Park Commission Plan) 

NEED 

The Fort Circle Parks are a collection of historic 

Civil War resources and the remnants of what 

was originally envisioned as a parkway with a 

historical focus, but that was never completed. 

(Appendix A contains legislation pertaining to 

the Fort Circle Parks.) Even in Washington, they 

are not well known. Individual areas may be 

heavily used by neighbors but not understood to 

be a part of the national park system. This plan 

is needed to help build a consistent image that 

distinguishes the Fort Circle Parks as a part of 

the national park system. 

The Fort Circle Parks are under the management 

of three separate units — Rock Creek Park, the 

National Capital–East, and George Washington 

Memorial Parkway umbrella of parks. Each has 

its own staff, management guidance, and 

priorities. Uniformity of interpretation, maintenance, and recreational activity does not exist 

among the three units. This plan is needed to 

provide such guidance to management, allowing 

a seamless transition from parcel to parcel. Visitors should not see a difference when traveling 

from one management unit to another. 

The Fort Circle Parks Master Plan. was completed in 1968 to help guide the management of 

the parks. Actions proposed in that plan now 

either have been implemented or are no longer 

deemed appropriate. This plan will help to ensure that management goals, objectives, and 

practices will not differ among the three parks 

and that all actions will be taken in accordance 

with National Park Service (NPS) policies and 

guidelines. 

The direction for future park management is 

based on the purpose and significance of the 

resources described below. These elements in 

turn are the foundation for the park interpretive 

topics and management objectives. Collectively, 

these pieces provide the context and philosophical direction for the alternatives considered. The approved management plan will 

provide broad direction for park management 

and allow specific action plans to be developed 

later to spell out the details for implementation. 

Within this framework, the focus of this document is on the management of cultural and 

natural resources, visitor use, interpretation and 

education, and recreational services. The National Park Service will comply with applicable 

laws, executive orders, and regulations (see 

appendix B). 

The draft plan presented and analyzed three 

alternatives describing different management 

scenarios. Following review by the public and 

various agencies, the National Park Service decided that combining alternatives 2 and 3 into a 

preferred alternative would be the best course of 

action. A finding of no significant impact was 
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

2

then prepared. The provisions of the preferred 

alternative became the plan described herein. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING 

COMMISSION POLICIES 

The National Capital Planning Commission 

provides guidance to all federal land managing 

agencies through its Comprehensive Plan. The 

parks, open space, and natural features element 

was updated during 1999 and 2000 and was 

formally adopted on February 1, 2001. 

The plan contains the following policies 

pertaining to Fort Circle Parks: 

Protecting Federal Open Space 

The regional significance of federal land continues to grow. Many of the federal parks, 

such as the C&O Canal, Rock Creek Park, 

Anacostia Park, and the Fort Circle Parks, 

extend for great distances and are linear in 

nature. Federal open spaces radiate throughout 

the Region in a manner that provides regional 

integration, not only with other federal lands, 

but also with lands under jurisdiction of 

neighboring states, local governments, or nonprofit entities. These existing and potential 

greenway interconnections provide significant 

opportunities for continuous passive and 

active recreational activities such as bicycling, 

walking and jogging, and wildlife observation. 

Various initiatives at the national, regional, 

and local level are underway to create, preserve, and improve these connections. These 

efforts are essential to maintaining enjoyment 

of the green city qualities that distinguish the 

Nation’s Capital. 

Natural Features 

Encourage and plan for the development of a 

continuous trail system for pedestrians and 

bicyclists by connecting the shoreline parks of 

the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, Rock 

Creek Park, the Fort Circle Parks, and other 

points of interest within the Nation’s Capital 

with other regional, state, and local park 

systems in the Region as a means of strengthening their recreational and ecological values. 

Policies for Historic Parks 

The Fort Circle Parks should continue to be 

enhanced and completed. Development and 

enhancement of the Fort Circle Parks should 

be compatible with the important natural 

features contained within, as well as the important function they serve as a landscape 

feature as viewed from the Monumental Core. 

In addition, the important scenic and historic 

elements of these Civil War Forts and panoramic views should be preserved, where appropriate. Community-oriented recreational 

opportunities and a well-delineated trail in 

park-like setting — utilizing the McMIllan 

Plan park connections — should be provided 

throughout the system. 

Policies for Trail Systems 

The Fort Circle Parks trail system should be 

completed as a continuous trail, linking the 

historic Civil War Fort sites within the 

District. Existing street rights-of-way shall be 

used where delicate cultural and natural 

features will not support a trail alignment 

unimpaired. The existing hiking trail through 

Glover-Archbold Park should be upgraded 

and link the Fort Circle trail system with the 

C&O Canal trail, if practicable. 

LEGISLATION 

The act of June 6, 1924, “An Act providing for a 

comprehensive development of the park and 

playground system of the National Capital,” set 

up the National Capital Park Commission to 

acquire lands in the District of Columbia, 

Virginia, and Maryland for the development of 

the National Capital park, parkway, and 

playground system and 

 . . . to preserve the flow of water in Rock Creek, to 

prevent pollution of Rock Creek and the Potomac 

and Anacostia Rivers, to preserve forests and 

natural scenery in and about Washington . . . 

The Capper-Cramton Act of May 29, 1930, as 

amended was 

an Act for the acquisition, establishment, and 

development of the George Washington Memorial 

Parkway along the Potomac from Mount Vernon 

and Fort Washington to the Great Falls, and to 

provide for the acquisition of lands in the District 

of Columbia and the states of Maryland and 
Purpose of and Need for the Plan 

3

Virginia requisite to the comprehensive park, 

parkway, and playground system of the National 

Capital. 

The Capper-Cramton Act, as it relates to the Fort 

Circle Parks, appropriated funds for the further 

acquisition of 

 . . . such lands in the District of Columbia as are 

necessary and desirable for the suitable 

development of the National Capital park, parkway, 

and playground system . . . 

Executive Orders 6166 and 6228 of June 10, 

1933, and July 28, 1933, transferred to the 

National Park Service the jurisdiction of Battleground National Cemetery and the functions of 

various commissions and agencies, among 

which were the public buildings and public 

parks of the National Capital. 
 United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

 DSC • 832 • 20,030A • March 2004

Vicinity 

FORT CIRCLE PARKS

Alexandria

Falls

Church Arlington

Bethesda

Wheaton

Washington

DC

M A R Y L A N D

M A R Y L A N D

M A R Y L A N D

D I S T R I C T OF C O L U M B I A

D I S T R I C T OF C O L U M B I A

V I R G I N I A

V I R G I N I A

Wash.

Nat'l

Arpt.

0

0 1 2 3

1 2 3 Miles

4 Kilometers NORTH

R

R 

R

R 

V

V

E

E

I

I

P O T O M A C

A

A N

C

O

S

T I A

Fort Foote

Study Area

Fort Marcy

Study Area

29

50

1

29

50

50

29

95

495

95

495

395

295

95

495

495

495

270

66
 CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON

 United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

 DSC • 832 • 20,041 • September 2002

Historic Map 

of 1865

SLEMMER

National Park Service site

Forts and batteries

on private property

Managed by another

public agency

Ft. Greble

Ft. Foote

Ft. Carroll

Ft. Stanton

Ft. Davis

Ft. Dupont

Ft. Chaplin

Ft. Mahan

Ft. Bunker Hill

Ft. Totten

Ft. Slocum

Ft. Stevens Ft. DeRussy

Ft. Bayard

Ft. Reno

Ft. Marcy Battery

Kemble

Battleground National Cemetery

Ft. Lincoln

Ft. Ward

Battery (Ft.) Ricketts
6

INTRODUCTION 

THE FORT CIRCLE 

With the outbreak of the Civil War, Washington 

turned into the training ground, arsenal, supply 

depot, and nerve center for the Union’s cause. 

Newly formed regiments encamped in every 

quarter and streets reverberated under the wheels 

of cannon. Cattle for meat grazed on the Mall; 

sacks of flour, stacked against siege, surrounded 

the U.S. Treasury. To protect the city and vital 

supply routes from enemy hands, the Union 

army built a ring of earthen fortifications on the 

ridges surrounding it. 

The remains of those fortifications, preserved by 

the National Park Service, make up the Fort 

Circle Parks. When constructed in the 1860s, the 

system of forts and connecting roads were on the 

city’s edge. The development of the city and 

nearby neighborhoods ultimately absorbed most 

of the sites, but the names of neighborhoods, 

playgrounds, parks, and other places throughout 

the area have origins in the Civil War fortifications.

When the Civil War began, only one fortification served as the capital’s defense. Fort 

Washington, nearly 12 miles down the Potomac 

River, was built to guard against enemy ships 

following the War of 1812. It took the rout of 

federal forces at Manassas in July 1861 to reveal 

how truly vulnerable the city was. Taking command of and reorganizing the Army of the Potomac, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan appointed 

Maj. John G. Barnard of the Corps of Engineers 

to build new forts to protect the city of 

Washington. 

Selecting sites a few miles outside the city 

limits, Barnard’s engineers picked high points 

that overlooked major turnpikes, railroads, and 

shipping lanes. Natural fords upriver from the 

city, allowing the enemy to cross the Potomac 

during low water, spurred the building of more 

forts and batteries. Rifle pits filled in the gaps. 

By spring 1865 the defense system totaled 68 

forts and 93 batteries, with 807 cannons and 98 

mortars in place. Twenty miles of rifle trenches 

flanked the bristling strongholds, joined by more 

than 30 miles of military roads over which companies of soldiers and guns could move as reinforcements. Washington, D.C., had become the 

most heavily fortified city in the world. As a 

result, only once during the war were Washington’s defenses tested and that occurred at Fort 

Stevens. 

Today, 0.5 mile north of Fort Stevens on 

Georgia Avenue (the Seventh Street Road that 

carried Early’s men to the assault), Battleground 

National Cemetery, one of the smallest national 

cemeteries, has 41 headstones for victims and 

veterans of the 1864 action near the fort. Regimental memorials honor the soldiers from New 

York, Pennsylvania, and other northern states, 

who fell on July 11 and 12 fighting to save the 

nation’s capital. 

At the war’s end in 1865 the forts and batteries 

were dismantled, the lumber and other materials 

were sold at auction, and much of the land was 

returned to prewar owners. Fort Foote, an active 

army post until it was abandoned as a fort in 

1878, was the last of the city’s Civil War 

defenses to close. 

FORT CIRCLE PARKS 

National Park Service Sites 

Fort Marcy, Fort Foote, Fort Greble; 

Fort Chaplin; Fort Carroll; 

Fort Ricketts; Fort Mahan; Fort Dupont; 

Fort Slocum; Fort Stevens; Fort Totten; 

Battery Kemble; Fort Bunker Hill; 

Fort Bayard; Fort Davis; Fort Stanton; 

Battleground Cemetery; and 

greenbelt connecting corridor 
Introduction 

7

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SITES 

Remnants of the fortifications can be found 

along the topographic ridge surrounding the city. 

They range from landmarks such as Military 

Road, where only the name suggests its origins, 

to partial reconstructions such as Fort Stevens 

and the stabilization and rearmament of Fort 

Foote. At many of these sites, interpretive 

markers to tell their stories. Others require some 

sleuthing to locate and recognize them for what 

they are.

Today some remnants of Washington’s Civil 

War defenses are administered by the National 

Park Service as part of already established parks 

at George Washington Memorial Parkway, Rock 

Creek Park, and National Capital Parks–East 

(see The Plan map, p. 6). 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

administers Fort Marcy, perched high above the 

Potomac in Virginia, where it protected against 

enemy forces crossing Chain Bridge and attacks 

from northern Virginia land routes. 

Rock Creek Park administers a semicircle of 

Civil War sites, where fortifications guarded 

against threats to the water supply and invasion 

from the west or north. Beginning at Chain 

Bridge Road, the ring starts with Battery 

Kemble and continues to Fort Bayard, Fort 

Reno, Fort DeRussy in Rock Creek Park itself, 

Fort Stevens, Fort Slocum, Fort Totten, and 

ending with Fort Bunker Hill beside the Franciscan monastery in the northeast part of the city. 

Along the hilltops southeast of the Anacostia 

River, the chain of forts from east to west 

guarded bridges, Capitol Hill, and naval installations from likely enemy approaches from 

southern Maryland. 

Portions of the Fort Circle Parks managed by 

National Capital Parks–East include Fort 

Mahan, Fort Chaplin, Fort Dupont, Fort Davis, 

Fort Ricketts next to Fort Stanton, Fort Carroll, 

and Fort Greble. 

Fort Foote, also managed by National Capital 

Parks–East, is in Maryland just south of the city. 

On Rosier Bluff overlooking the Potomac River, 

two 15-inch Rodman cannons, the heaviest guns 

of the war, remain as evidence of the important 

role the fort played in defending the nation’s 

capital against any river attack. 

SITES OUTSIDE NPS OWNERSHIP 

A number of forts that are not in national park 

system units are owned and managed by other 

public agencies in the Washington area. These 

agencies are potential partners for coordinated 

interpretive and other programs that would relate 

to the entire Civil War defense system surrounding Washington. See appendix C for a list and 

description of those sites in public ownership but 

outside NPS boundaries. 

PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS 

The 1902 McMillan Commission Report to 

Congress proposed creation of a “Fort Drive” 

connecting the Civil War circle of forts and 

earthen fortifications surrounding the city of 

Washington. This was to be a modern roadway 

through a landscaped corridor providing leisurely access to each fort site. In 1902, the drive 

would have been just outside the city. 

Between 1930 and 1965 the National Capital 

Park and Planning Commission continued to 

pursue the Fort Drive concept, which included 

acquiring fortification sites and land for parks. 

Some lands were purchased under the CapperCramton Act of May 29, 1930; some were acquired following street closure by the District of 

Columbia; some were transferred by other government agencies; and some lands were donated. 

Those properties were transferred to the National Park Service. In 1933 the publicly owned forts 

administered by the War Department were transferred to the National Park Service. In 1937 the 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) reconstructed a portion of Fort Stevens, and in 1959 

the National Park Service acquired Fort Marcy. 

The most recently approved management plan 

for the Fort Circle Parks was the 1968 Fort 

Circle Parks Master Plan. While recognizing 

the historic importance of the Fort Circle Parks, 
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

8

the plan proposed “a continuous flow of visitor 

use around the inner city of Washington.” 

Visitors would be afforded opportunities for 

“active and passive recreation as well as historical and natural history interpretation.”

The key to this connection of recreational 

opportunities was to be a continuous bikeway 

and foot trail, with interpretation of the historic 

fort sites along the way. The bicycle/pedestrian 

trail was proposed in lieu of the original fort 

drive concept because “by this time it has become obvious that the concept of developing a 

continuous Fort Drive ‘parkway’ is impossible 

and impractical.” By then, the residential development of the city had grown to surround the 

Fort Circle Drive ring. Further, the National 

Capital Planning Commission, in conjunction 

with the National Park Service, reevaluated the 

Fort Park system in 1965 and determined that 

what would best serve the city and the resources 

would be to retain the concept of the McMillan 

Commission to “foster the memorialization aspects of the old fort sites into a continuous ribbon of park land in terms of present-day needs 

and conditions, without a road” (NPS 1968). 

The Master Plan made various recommendations for treatment of the fort sites, including 

stabilizing Forts Mahan, Chaplin, Totten, and 

Battery Kemble; preserving Fort DeRussy; 

rehabilitating Battery (Fort) Ricketts; and 

restoring Fort Dupont and partially restoring 

Forts Stevens, Davis, Greble, and (Battery) 

Carroll. 

During the intervening years since the approval 

of the 1968 Master Plan only a portion of the 

hiking/bicycle trail connecting the fort sites has 

been constructed. Restoration and rehabilitation 

recommendations were not implemented. Today 

some of the remaining fort sites are in need of 

attention. While essential preservation needs 

have been met at some sites, portions of others 

have deteriorated to the point where preservation 

efforts are needed. 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Purpose 

Purpose statements normally are defined by a 

park’s enabling legislation. Although the Fort 

Circle Parks are not a specifically legislated unit 

of the national park system, they were acquired 

under broad legislative authorities and need to 

be protected and preserved. The following purpose statements have been developed to guide 

management decisions for protecting the resources related to the system of forts and connecting corridors of the Fort Circle Parks. 

The purposes of the Fort Circle Parks are as 

follows: 

• to preserve and interpret historical resources 

related to the Civil War defenses of 

Washington. 

• to conserve this linkage of urban green 

spaces that contribute to the character and 

scenic values of the nation’s capital 

• to provide recreational opportunities 

compatible with historic and natural 

resource values 

Significance 

Significance statements define the most important things about a park’s resources and 

values, creating a tool for park managers to use 

in setting resource protection priorities and 

identifying primary park interpretive themes and 

desirable visitor experiences. The following 

significance statements for Fort Circle Parks 

reflect the importance of park resources. 

• The park sites contain remains of the 

defense sites (e.g., forts, batteries, rifle 

trenches) that effectively deterred the 

invasion of the nation’s capital during the 

Civil War.

CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

10

(blank back of foldout map) 
Introduction 

11

• The Fort Circle Parks include the remains of 

forts that were engaged in the Battle of Fort 

Stevens in July 1864 — the only Civil War 

battle in the District of Columbia and the 

only time a sitting U.S. president has come 

under enemy fire in warfare. 

• The pattern (greenbelt) of public space of 

Fort Circle Parks represents an element of 

one of the earliest urban planning efforts for 

public recreation in the United States (as 

first suggested in the 1902 McMillan Commission Report and the 1926–1927 National 

Capital Planning Commission Plan). Today 

it enhances the aesthetics of the nation’s 

capital and the quality of life for its citizens. 

• The Fort Circle Parks preserve significant 

natural features, including substantial acreage of mature native hardwood forest, geologic and aquatic resources, and a diversity 

of important habitat for indigenous flora and 

fauna that are unusual in an urban setting 

and that contribute to the uniqueness of the 

nation’s capital. 

INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

The overall goal of interpretation is to ensure 

that all visitors have opportunities to make intellectual and emotional connections with the many 

meanings reflected in park resources. It is the 

public’s direct and indirect exposure to park resources, their experiences, and the meanings and 

values they associate with the resources that 

provide their will for stewardship. Interpretive 

themes provide a framework for developing 

interpretive programs and media. They are 

derived from and reflect the purpose and significance of a park area. The following themes encompass the important stories to be told about 

the defense sites. 

• During the Civil War, Washington was not 

only the national capital, it was also a symbol of the Union and the nerve center of 

Union military operations. The city was 

threatened throughout the war. 

• Washington is in a topographic bowl, and 

the strategic heights around it had to be 

protected to prevent the enemy from 

locating cannons there and firing on the city. 

The system of forts was constructed on the 

elevated positions from which to fire at 

attacking enemy troops to give support to 

the flanks of the other forts and to protect 

the heights from enemy occupation. 

• The defense sites contain green space that 

represents one of the earliest urban planning 

efforts for public recreation in the United 

States. This public space, or greenbelt, 

affords prominent views of the city, as 

recognized in the 1902 McMillan Commission Report and in the subsequent National Capital Planning Commission Plan. 

Today the defense sites enhance the 

aesthetics of the nation’s capital and the 

quality of life for its citizens and visitors. 

• General Early’s raid on Washington was the 

only Civil War battle in the District of 

Columbia and the only time a sitting U.S. 

president came under enemy fire. 

• After the Civil War, the redistribution of 

land and facilities associated with the fort 

system affected the pattern of development 

of the city and the growth of urban 

communities. 

• The forts were proposed for protection as 

part of the 1902 McMillan Commission 

Report for “Fort Drive.” Today they serve as 

important green spaces in the city. 

• The Fort Circle Parks contain significant 

natural corridors that offer opportunities to 

learn about native flora, fauna, and other 

natural features in the urban area. 

DESIRED VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Desired visitor experience statements describe 

the fundamental visitor experiences that the 

National Park Service most wants to facilitate at 

the Civil War defense sites. In planning facilities, exhibits, trails, waysides, activities, personal services, outreach, and publications, park 

staff would work to create and enhance the 

opportunities for these experiences. By facilitating a variety of opportunities for people to 

experience the parks in their own ways, the 
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

12

National Park Service hopes to foster in visitors 

a sense of stewardship for the Fort Circle Parks 

resources. 

Visitors to the Fort Circle Parks should have the 

opportunity to do the following: 

• interact with the Fort Circle Parks’ cultural 

and natural resources in ways that do not 

damage or derogate those resources and 

provide safe, satisfying experiences 

• readily access orientation and activityplanning information and easily find their 

way around park sites 

• enjoy the park sites through passive and 

active recreational experiences in social or 

solitary ways 

• learn about or simply enjoy the diversity of 

the sites’ natural resources 

• learn about and contemplate the Battle of 

Fort Stevens and the important role that the 

Civil War defenses played in the war 

• appreciate the vulnerability of the sites’ 

natural and cultural resources to human 

activities inside and outside park boundaries, 

and actively participate in helping to preserve and protect park resources 

• interact with park employees and/or 

volunteers who are courteous and 

knowledgeable 

• access interpretive information about the 

parks without visiting them 

• continue learning about Fort Circle Parks 

resources after visiting the parks 

DESIRED RESOURCE CONDITIONS 

The preservation of the significant cultural and 

natural resources that make up the Fort Circle 

Parks is fundamental to an appreciation of the 

interpretive themes and the overall visitor experience. The decision-making for Fort Circle 

Parks will be guided by the following principles, 

which are prescribed in law and NPS policy: 

• Earthworks will be maintained in 

accordance with the draft Guide to Sustainable Earthwork Management (NPS 1998a). 

• Archeological resources will be inventoried 

and evaluated, and an “Archeological Overview” will be produced. 

• Management strategies and interpretive 

guidelines will be developed to resolve 

conflicts between the requirements for 

preservation and the impacts of interpretation and visitor use of the earthworks. 

• Earthworks and other features will be 

mapped with the use of global positioning 

and geographic information systems 

technologies. 

• Cultural landscapes will be defined, and 

measures will be taken to preserve those 

cultural landscapes consistent with the needs 

of natural resources and other cultural 

resources. 

• Properties, sites, or landscapes in the Fort 

Circle Parks that are eligible in their own 

rights for inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places will be identified. These 

will be properties whose significance has 

been redefined in light of new information 

or through reevaluation of existing significance. 

• Natural resources will be preserved to the 

extent possible consistent with the preservation of cultural resources, and appropriate 

measures will be taken to prevent avoidable 

damage to such resources. 

• Measures will be undertaken to prevent 

vandalism through education and to quickly 

repair any damage identified. 
13 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 

CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 

Balancing the desires of today’s urban dwellers 

for recreation and aesthetically pleasing green 

space and the need to preserve and protect the 

remaining Fort Circle resources for future generations is a significant challenge for resource 

managers today. 

Many of the fort sites, batteries, rifle trenches, 

and associated weaponry have disappeared from 

the landscape of the Fort Circle Parks. Much of 

the high ground surrounding the city has been 

impacted by development, although forests 

cover much of the Fort Circle Parks. These 

green spaces are a mere shadow of the once 

continuous protective shield that surrounded the 

nation’s capital. 

Today the remaining Civil War fort sites and 

associated earthworks have become important 

recreation areas for city residents. Local neighborhood parks have taken the place of military 

parade grounds and picnic shelters, and gardens 

now occupy some of the high ground once diligently protected by Union soldiers. Some families have recognized certain fort sites as yearly 

gathering spots for reunions through generations. In some locations, inappropriate recreational activities are having a detrimental effect 

on the historic resources. 

The challenges that exist today to preserve and 

protect the remaining cultural resources related 

to the Civil War lie in recognizing the changing 

face of the urban landscape. Land once considered indispensable for the protection of the nation’s capital in the latter half of the 19th century 

has evolved into a landscape deemed indispensable for recreation and for the preservation 

of natural and historic resources in the crowded 

urban landscape of the 21st century. 

NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 

Natural resource issues include the invasion of 

native plant communities by aggressive exotic 

plants, city development, streams “blown out” 

by uncontrolled runoff generated from impervious surfaces in the surrounding urban areas, soil 

compaction and erosion, and large-scale dumping of household and other wastes. 

Preservation efforts to save the Civil War defenses could have a secondary negative effect on 

the sites’ natural resources. Balancing the need 

for the preservation of historic sites and the 

preservation of natural areas in an urban setting 

challenges natural and cultural resource managers to reach mutually beneficial decisions 

related to the defense sites. 

VISITOR USE ISSUES 

Providing adequate and consistent interpretation, 

education, and visitor services at the defense 

sites is another challenge for park managers, as 

is balancing the demand for recreation with the 

need for resource preservation. Many recreational visitors to one or more of the sites do not 

know that they are in a national park, nor do 

they recognize the individual park as being part 

of a larger system of parks that protect the 

remains of historic forts, batteries, and rifle 

trenches. Visitor services are extremely limited 

at most sites, with few restroom facilities, poor 

or inadequate signs, and no onsite orientation 

available. Few interpretive and educational 

programs are offered at the sites, and interpretive media are virtually nonexistent. 

Another challenge to managers is to establish a 

balance between passive and informal recreational use of open spaces and intensive use by 

organized sports leagues. At some sites the 

sports leagues represent an influx of park users 

from outside the surrounding neighborhoods, 

whereas members of the local communities are 

more likely to use the parks for passive recreation such as picnics and children’s play. Because there is a finite amount of green space in 

the District of Columbia, there is fierce competition among user groups for such space. 
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

14

Safety is also a major concern. Many neighbors 

to the sites are concerned that some forested and 

secluded areas provide cover for illicit activity. 

U.S. Park Police concur with this view. In addition, neighbors are concerned that preservation 

efforts will limit neighborhood uses of park 

areas such as community gardening and picnicking. Some people are also concerned that 

raising the profile of these parks will bring 

strangers into their neighborhoods, causing traffic congestion, parking problems, and other 

possible issues of concern. 

PARK ADMINISTRATION/OPERATIONS 

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 

The Fort Circle Parks are managed by three 

different administrative units. Because the fort 

sites are not a unit unto themselves, funding for 

preservation, maintenance, and interpretation 

programs compete with other park needs within 

the three units now managing the sites. 

Interpretive rangers and maintenance staffs of 

each of the administering parks also work in the 

Fort Circle Parks. Whereas George Washington 

Memorial Parkway manages one fort site, Rock 

Creek Park and National Capital Parks–East 

manage multiple sites. This has created differing 

approaches and emphases for managing the fort 

sites among the three managing park units. 

Ever-changing park priorities and the distinctions in the needs and desires of the communities surrounding the fort sites make it difficult at 

best to coordinate preservation, maintenance, 

security, and/or interpretive and educational 

programs across the Fort Circle Parks system. 

ISSUES BEYOND THE 

SCOPE OF THIS PLAN 

This management plan does not address sitespecific planning or implementation strategies 

for each individual defense site. Rather, those 

plans and designs will be developed after this 

plan has been adopted and a strategy for management is in place. 
ZONING

AND

 BASIC

STRATEGIES

17

ZONING 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Park Service uses zoning to provide a framework for decisions about use and 

development. Each park is divided to indicate 

the specific management emphasis — recreation, natural, or cultural resource preservation, 

or special use — in that zone. 

Management prescriptions are developed for 

each zone. A management prescription is an 

approach for administering or treating the resources or uses of a specified area. These actions 

are based on the desired outcomes. This section 

contains descriptions of all the management 

prescriptions that could be applied to the Fort 

Circle Parks.

In each management prescription are target 

goals or objectives for one or more resources or 

visitor experiences present in the prescription 

area. The Fort Circle Parks consist of multiple 

zones with different management prescriptions. 

The management prescriptions described herein 

define the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences, including the appropriate kinds 

and levels of management, use, and development. Together, all the management prescriptions meet the goals of the Fort Circle Parks. 

Different physical, biological, and social conditions are emphasized in each zone. These 

factors then indicate the types of activities or 

facilities that are appropriate in each zone. 

Regardless of the target visitor experience or 

resource condition, all management prescriptions conform to all park-specific purpose, 

significance, and mission goals and to the servicewide mandates and policies described earlier 

in this document. For example, an archeological 

site will be protected regardless of the zone it is 

in. However, the use of that site for interpretive 

or educational purposes might vary, depending 

on the management prescription applied to its 

area. 

POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTIONS 

Cultural Resource Zone 

The cultural resource zone contains lands that 

are managed primarily for the preservation, protection, and interpretation of their cultural 

resource values, but the zone also could require 

management consideration of preserving natural 

resource values. Typically, lands in this zone 

will include key cultural resources related to the 

significance and purposes of the parks. Examples of such resources are earthworks and any 

associated archeological features. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitors will have 

the opportunity to learn about and contemplate 

the Civil War resources in the parks and gain a 

sense of their significance. They will learn about 

the resources mainly through brochures, wayside 

exhibits, or other nonpersonal services. A visitor 

can expect a low to moderate number of encounters with other visitors or NPS personnel.

Desired Resource Condition. Archeological 

and historic features will be protected and 

preserved to the extent possible. All cultural 

resources in the zone will be document and 

interpreted. 

Cultural landscapes in this zone generally will 

be managed to reflect their historical design or 

to lend stability to ruins or remnant resources. 

Nonnative plant species generally will be 

avoided or used sparingly if consistent with 

management objectives. 

The management of natural resources will be 

compatible with the programs and procedures 

aimed at preserving cultural resources. Natural 

processes will be maintained wherever possible. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Activities will be limited to those compatible 

with maintaining the integrity of the featured 

cultural and/or natural resources. The placement 
ZONING AND BASIC STRATEGIES

18

of facilities in these areas will be minimized to 

ensure the preservation of archeological resources and to retain the existing (often natural) 

landscape surrounding the earthworks.

Connecting Corridor Zone 

The connecting corridor zone will contain areas 

of the Fort Circle Parks that were purchased for 

the construction of a parkway connecting fort 

resources. Historic earthworks will not be 

included in this zone, which will be made up 

mainly of small parcels of manicured lawn and 

trees maintained as green space. 

This zone will constitute a pleasant corridor 

through a mix of trees and open spaces with 

limited views of the surrounding city. Landscapes will be maintained in a sustainable 

fashion, and the defining features of this zone 

will be preserved. 

Desired Visitor Experience. A visitor can 

drive, bicycle, or walk along a well-maintained 

paved road, sidewalk, or designated trail (often 

unpaved) through the park. The experience will 

be linear and sequential. Visitors entering this 

zone may gain a sense of decompression and 

relaxation. The rate of encounter with other visitors in this zone may be high at times, and 

temporarily heavy traffic will be accepted. 

Desired Resource Condition. The landscape in 

the connecting corridor zone will be substantially modified from natural conditions. A mix of 

exotic and native plant materials will be used to 

create an aesthetically pleasing landscape in 

keeping with the historic parkway design. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Visitor activities in the connecting corridor zone 

will involve driving, jogging, bicycling, walking, and skating. Landscape management will be 

more intensive than in natural zones, including 

such activities as mowing and trimming, tree 

planting or removal, and exotic plant control. 

Some intersections or other points will be rehabilitated for visitor safety or aesthetics, but the 

redesign will avoid increasing the capacity of the 

roadway or encouraging higher speeds. 

Recreation Zone 

The recreation zone will contain areas where 

recreational facilities have been developed or 

those that have been designated for specific 

activities; for example, picnic areas, community 

gardens, or baseball, basketball, or softball/soccer fields, along with associated parking areas. 

These will be relatively small nodes of intense 

activity in portions of the Fort Circle Parks that 

are not associated with the Civil War defenses 

and do not contain earthworks or other historic 

or archeological resources. The background 

setting will consist of heavily manicured lawns 

and well-maintained vegetation and structures. 

The community gardens will be set aside for use 

by neighborhood gardeners. Trails around or 

through this zone will allow visitors to connect 

with other zones in the Fort Circle Parks. 

Desired Visitor Experience. The recreation 

zone will encompass both (a) areas of intense 

activity where large groups of people actively 

use the facilities or passively watch the activities 

of others and (b) areas of relative quiet where 

community gardens are tilled as a comparatively 

solitary endeavor. There will be a high tolerance 

for noise and activity around ballfields and picnic areas in this zone, with less noise in community garden areas. Most of the visitation in 

this zone will be local or regional. National visitors probably will pass through on a designated 

trail. 

Desired Resource Condition. Ballfields and 

picnic areas will be intensively maintained to 

keep them in good condition while allowing for 

concentrated visitor use. 

Community gardens will be carefully maintained 

and attractive. Tools, supplies, and other items 

necessary for gardening will be brought in and 

removed each day to maintain an attractive 

appearance. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Organized and informal recreational activities 

will be the primary use of the recreation zone. 

Facilities will be highly specialized and 
Zoning 

19

designed for high use. Parking and restroom 

facilities will be appropriate in this zone. 

Community gardens will be a specialized area in 

the recreation zone. Utilities such as water may 

be provided.

Natural Resource Zone 

The natural resource zone comprises areas of the 

parks that are managed primarily to maintain 

forests and natural scenery, but they may also 

contain cultural resources. Natural processes 

will predominate except where intervention is 

needed to protect or restore disturbed systems or 

to preserve cultural resources. Such areas might 

be stream valleys, woods, prominent forest 

corridors, and other sensitive natural areas not 

included in the cultural resource zone. Resources 

can be minimally modified for visitor needs 

(such as trail improvements) or for visitor safety, 

but only after careful review of alternatives consistent with the environmental compliance process. The tolerance for resource degradation in 

this zone will be low. This will be the largest 

zone in the Fort Circle Parks. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitors in the 

natural resource zone can hike along a trail that 

lets them feel they are in a forest without leaving 

the city. The trails will be mostly unpaved, as 

opposed to the mostly paved sidewalks in the 

connecting corridor zone. Scenic quality and 

natural sound will be essential. The probability 

of encountering other visitors and NPS staff will 

be moderate. The interpretive media in this zone, 

which will be as unobtrusive as possible, will be 

anchored to adjacent, more intensive use zones 

where possible. Some natural areas (stream 

valleys, topographically challenging areas) will 

remain free of new trails or development. 

Desired Resource Condition. Natural processes 

will predominate in the natural resource zone 

except when thorough examination of alternatives shows that some manipulation is needed 

for safety, resource protection, or habitat restoration. The prominent forested ridgelines that 

serve as backdrop for the cityscape will be maintained as contiguous corridors. Clearings and 

new facilities that interrupt these contiguous 

corridors will be avoided if possible. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Birding, walking, jogging, and nature study will 

be appropriate activities for the natural resource 

zone. Appropriate facilities will be maintained, 

and any new trails and maintenance roads will 

be unpaved. Orientation and subtle interpretive 

signs will be appropriate, especially if they are 

directly adjacent to more developed zones. Other 

structures will be appropriate only if they are 

required to preserve cultural or natural 

resources.

Visitor Services Zone 

The visitor services zone will present information, orientation, interpretation, and education 

about the Fort Circle Parks, as well as other 

visitor services. Such services can be offered in 

commercial structures outside park boundaries 

or in adapted historic or nonhistoric structures in 

any of the Fort Circle Parks units — Rock Creek 

Park, George Washington Memorial Parkway, or 

National Capital Parks–East. (If visitor services 

are developed outside the boundaries of the Fort 

Circle Parks units, there will be no need for this 

zone.) 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitor services in 

this zone will be safe, convenient, inviting, and 

easily accessible. The kind of orientation and 

interpretive background offered will allow visitors to enjoy the parks on their own or with a 

guide brochure or to take advantage of park 

programs from which they can gain a greater 

understanding of the parks’ natural and cultural 

resources. The probability of encountering other 

visitors and NPS staff will be high. 

Desired Resource Condition. In the visitor 

services zone, special attention will be paid to 

compatibility with the surrounding park landscape and with historic and natural features. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Appropriate facilities in the visitor services zone 

will be kiosks, visitor centers, visitor contact 

stations, restrooms, and staging areas. Also 
ZONING AND BASIC STRATEGIES

20

appropriate will be small amphitheaters designed 

to offer orientation to the Fort Circle Parks, 

directions to other units, and interpretation of the 

overall importance of the forts. Parking areas 

might be appropriate at some sites. Any structures will blend with their natural and cultural 

environments. 

Special Use Zone 

The special use zone encompasses the areas of 

the Fort Circle Parks that are given over to facilities or uses not fully under the control of the 

National Park Service. Examples are the water 

reservoirs at Forts Reno and Stanton, schools 

and playgrounds, the Anacostia Museum, and 

recreational centers operated by the District of 

Columbia. 

Desired Visitor Experience. Visitor services in 

this zone will not be under NPS control, and 

visitors may not be appropriate in some of these 

areas. Where visitors are welcome, the experience will be compatible with the Fort Circle 

Parks experience — safe, convenient, inviting, 

and easily accessible, complementing the 

experience in other zones of the Fort Circle 

Parks. 

Desired Resource Condition. To the extent 

possible, facilities in the special use zone will be 

designed to be compatible with surrounding park 

landscape and historic and natural features. 

Noise levels can be higher than those in other 

zones of the Fort Circle Parks. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

Appropriate activities in the special use zone are 

those that are already permitted. 

Administrative Zone 

The administrative zone covers NPS areas that 

are an important component of the Fort Circle 

Parks but are not normally seen by visitors, such 

as offices, maintenance areas, and U.S. Park 

Police facilities. 

Desired Visitor Experience. It is unlikely that 

visitors will spend time in the administrative 

areas. 

Desired Resource Condition. Because the 

administrative zone will contain support facilities, it will consist mainly of low natural and 

cultural resource integrity, such as previously 

disturbed or developed areas. These areas will 

be landscaped to be as unobtrusive as possible. 

Maintaining the scenic quality of the surrounding area is important. Noise levels in this zone 

can be higher than elsewhere, particularly if 

maintenance activities are involved. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities.

The facilities in the administrative zone are 

those necessary to the operation of the Fort 

Circle Parks but not generally used by visitors, 

such as offices, maintenance and maintenance 

storage facilities, internal roads, and staff 

parking. 
21

BASIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The need for a comprehensive framework for 

cultural, natural, and recreational resource management and interpretation is recognized as a 

major component of this planning effort. These 

actions are related to historic resource preservation planning (including specific park management plans), carrying capacity, safety issues, 

and access for visitors with disabilities. 

PRESERVATION PLANNING 

The Fort Circle Parks contain remnants of forts, 

trenches, and earthworks that protected the 

nation’s capital from Confederate attack during 

the Civil War. Most of the fort sites and related 

features were dismantled after the war or have 

slowly but steadily disappeared with the city’s 

expansion. 

The remaining 18 defense sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places consist mainly 

of earthworks and the remains of rifle trenches. 

The greenbelt connecting corridor designated 

“Fort Circle Drive” by the National Capital 

Parks and Planning Commission reflects the 

original communication routes between the fort 

sites, as well as aspects of 20th century urban 

planning philosophies. (The District of Columbia historic preservation officer considers these 

green spaces eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places.) 

In the 1930s the Civilian Conservation Corps 

reconstructed Fort Stevens, the most historically 

significant of the defense sites. Deterioration 

from natural elements and vandalism threaten 

the resources at Fort Stevens and many other 

sites. Although essential preservation needs have 

been met at some sites, portions of others have 

deteriorated to the point where preservation 

efforts are needed. 

Recommendation: Park managers recognize that 

to properly maintain and interpret the defense 

system of historic, natural, and recreational resources, the National Park Service must take a 

holistic approach to its preservation. Therefore, 

managers from the three parks administering the 

defense sites will work together to develop a 

comprehensive preservation plan to address detailed protection and preservation needs at each 

site. The plan also will include criteria to identify the sites where there is the most immediate 

need for stabilization and preservation. The plan 

also will outline cyclic maintenance needs and 

schedules to meet preservation goals for all the 

park sites within the boundaries. 

The managers of the three parks will work 

together to plan and carry out other functions 

necessary to administering these sites 

holistically, such as managing cultural and 

natural resources, managing museum collections, and interpretation. To appropriately 

accomplish these management functions, the 

following plans are especially needed: a historic 

resource study, a comprehensive interpretive 

plan, a cultural landscape report, and an 

archeological overview and evaluation.

Historic Resource Study 

On June 19, 1973, the District of Columbia Joint 

Commission on Landmarks designated the entire 

Fort Circle Parks as “Landmarks of the Nation’s 

Capital.” This designation included the forts 

themselves, along with the greenbelt connectors 

purchased by the National Capital Parks and 

Planning Commission for the “Fort Drive.” 

The Fort Circle Parks were placed on the 

National Register of Historic Places on July 15, 

1974. 

On February 9, 1998, the District of Columbia 

historic preservation office reaffirmed the 

significance of the “Civil War fort sites” and 

suggested that the “Fort Circle Park System” 

was eligible for the national register in its own 

right, citing the Fort Circle Parks system as a 

major element of the 1902 McMillan Commission plan for the city of Washington. 

A historic resource study is underway to identify 

the historic context for the development and 

evolution of the Civil War defenses of Wash-
ZONING AND BASIC STRATEGIES

22

ington. Information contained in the report will 

be used to update the national register nomination for the defenses and to identify the relationship of early urban planning efforts to the 

evolution of the fort sites and adjacent corridor 

surrounding the city of Washington. 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

An interpretive plan is needed to guide the 

development of interpretive programs specifically related to the defense sites. The plan will 

be used by the staff and volunteers in conjunction with the development of exhibits and 

wayside media. It also will provide specific 

guidance for preparing an exhibit plan. 

In related NPS efforts, interpretive plans are 

underway for Rock Creek Park and Anacostia 

Park (a unit of National Capital Parks–East). 

Recommendations in those documents will 

supplement the more specific guidance of such a 

plan for the Fort Circle Parks.

Cultural Landscape Report 

The National Park Service completed a cultural 

landscape inventory of the defense sites in 1996 

(NPS 1996) as part of this planning effort. The 

work in the cultural landscape inventory lays the 

groundwork for the completion of a cultural 

landscape report. The information in a cultural 

landscape report will provide the basis for any 

recommendations to amend the national register 

nomination, including contributing and noncontributing features, suggested treatments for cultural resource preservation, and the provision of 

management guidelines appropriate for national 

register properties. Potential vistas will be 

identified. 

Archeological Inventory and Evaluation 

Associated with some of the earthworks were 

ancillary features or structures that served as 

encampments, signal corps facilities, and headquarters. Also possible could be evidence of 

hospitals or aid stations, temporary graves, or 

unmarked interments. Many of these show up on 

military maps of the period. However, still unknown is whether such features still exist, their 

state of preservation, or the impact of visitation 

on them. 

NPS policy and section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

require that all cultural resources — archeological, historic, architectural, and landscape 

architectural — be inventoried and evaluated for 

possible inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. Until that can be completed, The 

National Park Service will undertake individual 

surveys of each area that would be affected by 

the actions of this plan. At each site where 

ground disturbance will occur, the National Park 

Service will carry out archeological testing and 

other methods that use low impact techniques to 

minimize any possible adverse impact. 

VISITOR USE STUDY 

A comprehensive visitor use study is needed to 

understand who the visitors to the Fort Circle 

Parks are and how they use the parks. Such a 

study will help the parks to meet visitors’ expectations and provide better services, more 

knowledgeable staff, and facilities appropriate to 

visitors’ needs. The study also will help to 

identify where park resources should be focused. 

CARRYING CAPACITY 

No carrying capacity studies have been 

conducted for the Fort Circle Parks. 

Visitor carrying capacity defines the appropriate 

level of resource use beyond which the resource 

is damaged. Each cultural or natural resource 

area is evaluated to determine how the resource 

is used and to identify indicators of possible 

damage. These indicators could be such things 

as erosion, extensive soil compaction, creation 

of “social trails” (informal trails), damage to 

trees, shrubs, or cultural resources, or an inability of visitors to properly enjoy the site due to 

crowding. 

Carrying capacity is difficult to measure at most 

of the defense sites. Visitor access is difficult to 
Basic Management Strategies 

23

control in urban parks. The use of the parklands 

associated with the sites is primarily by city 

residents living near the sites. In addition, the 

primary use on associated parklands is active 

recreation, rather than appreciation of the 

historic resources. 

Although overcrowding does not appear to be an 

issue, the misuse of the resources (such as the 

creation of “social” trails and climbing on earthworks) is significant. This is an enforcement 

issue rather than a carrying capacity issue. 

Recommendation: A carrying capacity study 

should be conducted for the Fort Circle Parks to 

better understand how visitors use each site, 

what visitor expectations and demands are, and 

what effects visitation causes on each historic 

resource (see indicators described in the 

“Zoning” section). 

SAFETY 

Safety issues in Fort Circle Parks are of two 

basic varieties. First is the need for visitors to be 

safe while in the parks. Many of the large 

wooded areas are used for illicit activities, and 

visitors are legitimately concerned about their 

personal safety. The U.S. Park Police may need 

to increase their patrolling of the parks, but they 

cannot be expected to make them totally safe. As 

more activities are scheduled and more people 

use the parks, visitors will feel less 

uncomfortable. 

The second safety concern is the protection of 

visitors from slips, trips, and falls resulting from 

lack of maintenance or other unsafe conditions. 

Recommendation: A study of possible activities 

at the Fort Circle Parks should be undertaken, in 

keeping with the historic and recreational significance of the parks. It is important to fill 

the parks with life in order to take them back for 

use by law-abiding citizens. More Park Police 

patrols should be added. 

ACCESS FOR VISITORS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

A significant part of the mission of the National 

Park Service is providing for visitor enjoyment. 

All visitors should enjoy NPS parks and facilities. Visitors come in all ages, sizes, and capability levels. An increasing number have special 

physical needs and requirements to be able to 

enjoy our national parks. 

As outlined in the policies of the National Park 

Service, Management Policies 2001, the 

National Park Service will provide the highest 

feasible level of physical access to historic properties for people with disabilities, consistent with 

the preservation of the properties’ significant 

historical attributes. Access modifications will 

be designed and installed that will least affect 

the features of a property that contribute to its 

significance. 

All nonhistoric buildings and structures associated with the Fort Circle Parks will be made 

fully accessible to people with disabilities, and 

every effort will be made to accommodate visitors with disabilities at the historic fort sites 

while balancing the maintenance of the historic 

integrity of each site. All visitor services will be 

adapted to accommodate visitors with special 

needs. 

Recommendation: An evaluation of each site 

and facility should be undertaken to determine 

what actions will be necessary to enhance 

accessibility, consonant with the preservation of 

significant resources. 

THE PLAN

27

OVERVIEW 

In the Draft Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment, three alternatives addressing concerns and issues about the future management of 

the Fort Circle Parks were evaluated. Purpose 

and significance statements, identification of 

significant resources, and input received during 

public meetings guided the development of the 

alternatives. 

After the draft plan was published and following 

agency and public review, the planning team, in 

response to comments received, combined the 

previous alternatives 2 and 3 to form a new preferred alternative. A finding of no significant 

impact was issued in September 2003. That

document indicated that the agency’s preferred 

alternative also is the environmentally preferable 

alternative and would become the management 

plan for the Fort Circle Parks.

The management of the Fort Circle Parks will 

focus on both cultural resources and recreation. 

Cultural resource management will focus on the 

story of the Civil War defenses of Washington, 

with special emphasis on the battle of Fort 

Stevens and on the ring of forts that protected 

the city of Washington during the Civil War. 

These sites are nationally significant because 

they effectively protected the nation’s capital 

from Confederate attack, influencing the 

outcome of the Civil War. 

A significant part of the mission of the National 

Park Service will be to improve local and regional recreation. Recreation management will 

be compatible with the protection of significant 

cultural and natural resources of the parks. It 

will involve linking sites through interpretation, 

designating a new foot trail linking some of the 

fort sites and the connecting green corridor of 

the Fort Circle Parks system, designating auto 

tour routes, and producing a driving tour guide 

and other publications (see The Plan maps 

sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.) 

The Fort Circle defenses and the natural areas 

that have grown up around them have become 

part of the local cityscape and now function as 

community parks. The National Park Service 

will offer interpretation and educational programs so that all visitors can experience park 

resources in ways compatible with preserving 

those resources. Visitors will have opportunities 

to make personal connections with the historic 

events these sites commemorate. 
28

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The focus for managing cultural resources in the 

Fort Circle Parks will be on the national significance of the battle of Fort Stevens and the ring 

of forts and batteries that protected the city 

during the Civil War. Other foci will be on the 

activities of the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) at various sites during the 1930s, the 

McMillan Plan, and early 20th century city planning and parks/parkway design concepts. 

Preservation actions for historic resources will 

entail stabilizing earthworks, controlling erosion, and managing vegetation. Vegetation will 

be cleared from selected areas in Fort Foote and 

Fort Totten following archeological evaluation. 

This will enhance the interpretation of the critical role played by the system of forts during the 

Civil War. 

The CCC-era reconstruction of Fort Stevens will 

be preserved, and Fort Stevens will be recommended for national recognition as a national 

battlefield, national historic landmark, or 

national historic site in its own right. 

A walking tour of the battle of Fort Stevens, 

between Battleground National Cemetery and 

Fort Stevens, will be developed to encourage 

visitors to use the proposed side trail to the 

National Cemetery (see the map on p. 6). A 

brochure will be prepared to interpret the 

defense sites system, the significance of the 

Battle of Fort Stevens, and the evolution of 

preservation efforts related to the fort sites and 

the greenbelt connecting them. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Natural resources will be managed to maintain 

the greenbelt around the city for its natural, cultural, and scenic values. Preservation actions 

will involve emphasizing the removal of exotic 

vegetation to ensure habitat for native plant and 

animal species, retaining the forest canopy over 

earthworks, and surveying and monitoring park 

boundaries to prevent encroachments. Steps will 

be taken to eliminate illegal dumping, manage 

stormwater, and control erosion. The use of 

adjacent lands will be monitored, and zoning 

will be used to protect park resources. 

Opportunities to correct stormwater impacts 

from nonpark sources will be sought and implemented, and feasible environmental enhancements will be undertaken. These actions will 

improve the opportunities for interpreting 

natural resources. 

RECREATION 

Existing recreational opportunities and facilities 

will be improved where needed. Such improvements might include rehabilitating selected 

ballfields, basketball and tennis courts, picnic 

areas, and other existing facilities as needed. 

Proposals for added new facilities will be carefully evaluated. 

A new trail will be developed to link most of the 

fort sites and to connect the green corridor of the 

Fort Circle Parks system. A separate planning 

effort will be necessary to develop the new trail. 

The National Park Service will consult with the 

District of Columbia and other governmental 

and private organizations to develop a route. Existing trail segments will be used, as will city 

sidewalks, with some minor construction to connect existing trail segments. It is proposed that 

the trail extend the entire 23 ± miles around the 

city. 

In the Shepherd Parkway area, the trail will go 

primarily along city sidewalks to avert the impacts of a new trail in narrow wooded corridors 

and to avoid important wildlife habitat. 

Appropriate signs will be placed along the 

greenbelt corridor connecting most of the fort 

sites. Where possible, bicycles will be allowed 

on the new trail so long as cultural and natural 

resources can be sufficiently protected. Existing 

bicycle use of the trail between Fort Mahan and 

Fort Stanton can continue, but because of the 

DSC • 832 • 20045 • SEPT 2004



Management Actions 

39

alternating urban and rustic nature of existing 

trails, as well as the environmental damage and 

aesthetic changes that would be caused by a 

“combination” trail, the rest of the trail will be 

limited to walking only.

Sidewalks will need to be replaced or constructed in some areas along the trail route. 

Pushbutton streetlights will have to be installed 

to allow visitors to cross busy streets safely. 

Bridges will be necessary to cross long expanses 

of water such as the Anacostia River or parkways such as the Suitland Parkway. Such locations will be identified and appropriate measures 

taken after the separate trail study is completed. 

Based on the history of Fort Circle Drive and its 

various incarnations over the past 90+ years, this 

trail will maintain the identity of the defenses of 

Washington as a “system” that protected the city 

and that, in our time, offers recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors. The trail 

will become the physical manifestation of the 

site’s history. 

Like previous planning efforts, this trail reflects 

the original proposal in the 1902 The Improvement of the Park System in the District of Columbia to preserve the original fort sites and 

maintain a greenbelt of parkland around the 

inner periphery of the District of Columbia. 

(NPS Civil War sites are listed in appendix E.) 

A brochure will be issued to cover the trail 

route, and appropriate interpretive and directional signs will be placed at appropriate intersections to guide users and to explain the historic communications and supply uses of the 

original connecting corridor between fort sites. 

Opportunities for traditionally passive forms of 

recreation such as birding and nature walks will 

be enhanced by the trail improvements and 

through interpretation. 

In 1989 Congress authorized the Potomac Heritage Trail, which will extend from Chesapeake 

Bay to Pennsylvania, connecting the cultural 

resources of the Potomac River corridor. A city 

council resolution directed the mayor to develop 

a plan for an alignment of the Potomac Heritage 

Trail in Washington D.C. Congress designated 

the C & O Canal a segment of the trail; however, 

the concept of the Potomac Heritage Trail is that 

of a braided trail system that can be composed of 

side trails as well. Thus, the Fort Circle Trail 

could be made part of the Potomac Heritage 

Trail if the District of Columbia nominated it to 

the secretary of the interior. 

VISITOR USE AND DEVELOPMENT 

A comprehensive interpretive plan will be 

developed for the Fort Circle Parks. This plan 

will call for partnerships with Monocacy National Battlefield and other Civil War sites (such as 

Fort Ward), both federally and nonfederally 

managed (see appendix C). It will contain plans 

for interpretive staffing, visitor center exhibits, 

publications, wayside exhibits, and other interpretive media such as a video and an audio-tour 

tape. 

A small year-round visitor contact facility will 

be developed in the vicinity of Fort Stevens. 

This will become a focal point of the system, 

offering visitor orientation and interpretation and 

serving as the start of a driving tour of the forts. 

Existing services such as restrooms, picnic 

tables, and parking lots will be improved to raise 

the quality of the visitor experience. The three 

superintendents will make a coordinated effort 

to develop a Fort Circle Parks logo and to purchase similar signs, site furniture, and interpretive materials as a way to make the Fort Circle 

Parks more visible and let visitors know when 

they are in the Fort Circle Parks. 

The activity center at Fort Dupont will be redeveloped into an education center for school and 

community groups, offering programs in cultural 

history, natural resources, and environmental 

education. The center also will promote community partnerships, helping schools within 

walking distance of the fort sites to use these 

areas as local outdoor classrooms for cultural 

and environmental education. 

Fort Marcy will be a key location for introducing national visitors to the fort system be-
THE PLAN

40

cause of its prominent location on the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway. This will not 

involve a new structure; rather, it represents a 

change in the interpretive focus to emphasize the 

entire system of forts and to encourage people to 

visit them. 

A kiosk near the earthworks at Fort Dupont will 

be a site for the interpretation of the fortifications of the southern and eastern quadrants. This 

is a central, easily accessible location for visitors 

to learn about the forts and how to find them, 

and a starting place for their exploration. 

PARK MANAGEMENT 

AND OPERATIONS 

The management responsibility for the fort 

resources will continue to be divided among 

Rock Creek Park, National Capital Parks–East, 

and George Washington Memorial Parkway. 

However, funding and staffing needs will be 

coordinated among the parks. This will ensure 

that the level of maintenance, facilities, and 

interpretation is similar across park boundaries 

and that the visitor experience is seamless 

regardless of park boundaries. 

The staff will have to be increased to operate 

proposed year-round contact facilities and to 

offer orientation and interpretive programs 

focusing on the history of the forts. Additional 

law enforcement patrols will be needed to help 

ensure a safe visit for park users. 

Funding also will have to be increased to cover 

preservation, stabilization, and restoration 

activities, as well as more staff. Appendix D 

contains a cost estimate. 
41

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER 

OVERVIEW 

Planning for the preservation and use of the forts 

and their associated lands has been a long ongoing process that has evolved with changing urban realities and priorities. A proposal to establish a “Fort Drive,” a road including connections 

with some of the Civil War fortifications, was 

included in the District of Columbia Highway 

Plan of 1898. Starting around the turn of the 

century (1900), there were numerous efforts to 

preserve at least some of the forts, including 

congressional consideration of bills to establish 

a Fort Stevens–Lincoln National Military Park 

(NPS 1996). Most of the major proposals of 

these early actions have not been implemented, 

but they included elements that merited consideration in the development of the management 

alternatives for the present plan. 

CHANGING THE NAME 

The possibility of changing the name of the Fort 

Circle Parks has been seriously considered. During public review the name “Civil War Fort 

Circle Parks” was suggested to emphasize the 

importance of the events that occurred here during the Civil War. Another possible name considered, in keeping with the significance of the 

Civil War earthworks, and in an effort to give 

new focus to the resources, was “Civil War Defenses of Washington.” The idea was that this 

name would give visitors a better understanding 

of what resources are available in these parks 

and focus the attention of local residents more 

on the Civil War resources and less on the local 

recreational aspects of the parks. 

The naming of a national park is not within the 

purview of the National Park Service. Changing 

the name of the Fort Circle Parks to any other 

name would require review and would involve 

an act of Congress. Although the name change 

has been discussed, such a decision is outside 

the scope of this plan. 

ESTABLISHING THE FORT DRIVE

A parkway connecting the fort sites, to be 

known as the Fort Drive, was an important component of early 20th century plans for the city of 

Washington. Much of the land needed to construct the drive was originally acquired. However, efforts to construct the drive met with 

strong community opposition, and the proposal 

did not receive congressional funding for construction. By 1962 it was concluded that the 

parkway was no longer a valid concept because 

of changed urban conditions, right-of-way limitations, and traffic increases on the cross streets 

that the road would have intersected. The conditions precluding the development of a parkway 

have continued to the present. 

DEVELOPING A CONTINUOUS 

BICYCLE/FOOT TRAIL 

In the 1960s a study by the National Capital 

Planning Commission, with the cooperation of 

the National Park Service, recommended that the 

original Fort Drive concept be revisited and that 

the parkway be developed as a “fort park system” emphasizing park recreation. One of the 

primary features would have been a continuous 

“bicycle and pedestrian way,” which would have 

been a significant recreational asset. Such a 

bicycle/hiking trail would have provided access 

to the other recreational and cultural opportunities (Fred Tuemmler and Asso. 1965). 

The National Park Service followed this concept 

and prepared the Fort Circle Parks Master Plan

in 1968. That plan was approved in 1974. Detailed plans were prepared for the continuous 

bikeway and foot trail, but few sections were 

actually constructed. A “hiker-biker” trail about 

3 miles long was constructed through the eastern 

section of fort parks, connecting Fort Mahan, 

Fort Chaplin, Fort Dupont, Fort Davis, and Fort 

Stanton. In 1971 this trail, the only part of the 

proposed trail ever constructed, was designated a 

national recreation trail. 
THE PLAN

42

Completing the bicycle portion of the bicycle 

and pedestrian way was contemplated during the 

planning for this document, but it was determined to be undesirable for several reasons. 

Palisade Park, Glover Archbold Park, and Rock 

Creek Park are intimate in scale, with narrow, 

often one-lane paths. In some places visitors 

must step from stone to stone or climb a steep 

set of stairs. Making those trails fully accessible 

for bicycles would have required additional 

bridges, and switchbacks or tunnels would have 

been needed. This would have resulted in a loss 

of the sense of wildness that currently exists. 

Trails in those three parks would have had to be 

widened to 10 feet to accommodate both hikers 

and bicyclists. (The 10-foot width is the minimum width recommended by the American 

Association of State Highway Transportation 

Officials for a shared use trail.) 

The removal of some trees would have been 

required, and some excavation and construction 

of walls along the valley slopes would have been 

necessary. Larger, more substantial bridges 

would have been needed. The trails would have 

had to be paved, and this would have significantly changed the appearance and character of 

the trails that now exist. 

The existing portions of the hiker-biker trail in 

National Capital Parks–East would have needed 

to be upgraded to the same standards as those for 

the new sections of trail. These standards have 

changed since the hiker-biker trail was constructed, and that trail, too, would have had to be 

widened and paved to be consistent with the new 

sections. This would have resulted in some of 

the same impacts noted above. The right-of-way 

in some residential areas is so narrow that more 

land would have had to be acquired to construct 

a bikeway to NPS standards. 

RESTORING OR 

RECONSTRUCTING FORTS 

The management policies of the National Park 

Service define three levels of treatment for historic structures that would be applicable to the 

Fort Circle Parks earthworks, from preservation

to reconstruction.

Preservation allows a structure to be preserved 

in its present condition provided that (1) satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation can be achieved or (2) another treatment is warranted but cannot be accomplished 

until some future time. Stabilization is one such 

treatment. 

Restoration allows a structure to be returned to 

an earlier appearance provided that (1) restoration is essential to public understanding of the 

cultural associations of the park, and (2) sufficient data exist to permit restoration with 

minimal conjecture. 

Reconstruction produces a new structure identical in form, features, and details to a historic 

structure that no longer exists. Reconstruction 

can be implemented when (1) it is essential to 

public understanding of the cultural associations 

of the park established for that purpose, (2) sufficient data exist to permit reconstruction on the 

original site with minimal conjecture, and (3) 

significant archeological resources will be 

preserved in situ or their research values will be 

realized through data recovery. 

Restoring selected forts was an alternative mentioned during the public involvement process, 

but it was rejected from consideration. Although 

the existing fort resources no longer contain a 

high percentage of their original historic fabric, 

drawings of each fort exist in the National 

Archives, which would have made restoration 

feasible. However, considering the amount of 

historic fabric remaining, the result, if done, 

might have been closer to reconstruction rather 

than restoration. 

The National Park Service considers reconstruction always a last-resort measure for addressing 

management objectives. Policy reviews and specific approvals would be required for the reconstruction of the forts. Such reconstruction would 

have resulted in the damage or destruction of the 

remaining original fabric. Extensive archeological investigation and mitigation would have 

been required before construction, and the whole 

process would have been very costly. In addi-
Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed Further 

43

tion, reconstructed sites would be more likely to 

attract vandalism. 

The National Park Service has restored or reconstructed earthworks at many areas within a twohour drive of Washington, D.C., notably Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields 

National Military Park, Richmond National Battlefield Park, and Petersburg National Battlefield. Fort Ward Museum and Historic Site, 

owned and operated by the city of Alexandria, 

Virginia, has been partially reconstructed and is 

within a 45-minute drive of most locations in the 

Fort Circle Parks. Fort Ward, although it is not 

part of the Fort Circle Parks, was one of the forts 

that originally made up the Civil War defense 

system of Washington. With ample opportunity 

to see a restored military earthwork in the Washington area, restoring or reconstructing any Fort 

Circle earthworks seems unnecessary. 

A secondary reason for rejecting this alternative 

is that to restore forts that are in a forested environment, large numbers of trees would have had 

to be removed and some wildlife habitat would 

have been eliminated. Such restoration also 

would have eliminated the forested canopy that 

provides a scenic backdrop to the nation’s 

capital. 

ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE NPS UNIT 

The establishment of a separate national park 

system unit for the Fort Circle Parks was briefly 

evaluated. It was dismissed from consideration 

for the following reasons: 

• Although the forts were listed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 15, 

1974, and the national register boundary was 

expanded September 13, 1978, the significance level was “local” rather than the 

“national” or “national landmark” level of 

significance normally required for a property to become a unit of the National Park 

Service in its own right. 

• The properties are being preserved at present 

as part of their current respective park 

affiliations and are in no danger of loss or 

destruction. 

• Interpretation and visitor use of the sites can 

be coordinated across the three existing 

parks without the need to create a separate 

park unit. 

• The operation and management of the individual fortification remnants, covering all 

four quadrants of the city, would have been 

unwieldy and logistically difficult to maintain. There would have been a redundancy 

with other units in the city, and the actions 

would have resulted in duplication of 

resources. 

ADDING A MAJOR VISITOR CENTER 

Consideration was given to establishing a major 

visitor center that would interpret the overall 

theme of Washington, D.C., during the Civil 

War. This objective has merit but is somewhat 

beyond the scope of this plan. In the future, 

additional consideration should be given to 

coordinating NPS and other resources related to 

the Civil War. At present, Fort Ward in Alexandria, Virginia, is providing a museum related 

to the Civil War defenses of Washington. This 

presents an excellent introduction to the fort 

system, and it should not be duplicated 

elsewhere by the National Park Service. 

APPENDIXES

REFERENCES

STUDY TEAM

47

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

1. Reorganization of Government, excerpts from Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933 (5 U.S.C. secs. 

124-132). 

Executive Order 

Organization of Executive Agencies 

 Whereas section 16 of the act of March 3, 1933 (Public, No. 428, 47 Stat. 1517), provides for 

reorganizations within the executive branch of the Government; requires the President to investigate and 

determine what reorganizations are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the statute; and authorizes the 

President to make such reorganizations by Executive order; and 

 Whereas I have investigated the organization of all executive and administrative agencies of the 

Government and have determined that certain regroupings, consolidations, transfers, and abolitions of executive 

agencies and functions thereof are necessary to accomplish the purposes of section 16; 

 Now, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid authority, I do hereby order that: 

 * * * * * * * * * * * 

Section 2. National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations

 All functions of administration of public buildings, reservations, national parks, national monuments, and 

national cemeteries are consolidated in an Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations1

 in the 

Department of the Interior, at the head of which shall be a Director of National Parks, Buildings, and 

Reservations; except that where deemed desirable there may be excluded from this provision any public building 

or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a particular agency. This transfer and 

consolidation of functions shall include, among others, those of the National Park Service of the Department of 

the Interior and the National Cemeteries and Parks of the War Department which are located within the 

continental limits of the United States. National cemeteries located in foreign countries shall be transferred to 

the Department of State, and those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department 

shall be administered by the Bureau of Insular Affairs of the War Department. 

 The functions of the following agencies are transferred to the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and 

Reservations of the Department of the Interior, and the agencies are abolished: 

 Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission 

 Public Buildings Commission 

 Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital 

 National Memorial Commission 

 Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission 

 Expenditures by the Federal Government for the purposes of the Commission of Fine Arts, the George 

Rogers Clark Sesquicentennial Commission, and the Rushmore National Commission shall be administered by 

the Department of the Interior. 

 * * * * * * * * * * * 

Section 19—General Provisions 

 Each agency, all the functions of which are transferred to or consolidated with another agency, is abolished. 

 The records pertaining to an abolished agency or a function disposed of, disposition of which is not 

elsewhere herein provided for, shall be of, disposition of which is not elsewhere herein provided for, shall be 

 

1

 “National Park Service” was substituted for “Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations” by Act of 

March 2, 1934 (48 Stat. 389), see excerpt, page 13. 
APPENDIXES 

48

transferred to the successor. If there be no successor agency, and such abolished agency be within a department, 

said records shall be disposed of as the head of such department may direct. 

 The property, facilities, equipment, and supplies employed in the work of an abolished agency or the 

exercise of a function disposed of, disposition of which is not elsewhere herein provided for, shall, to the extent 

required, be transferred to the successor agency. Other such property, facilities, equipment, and supplies shall be 

transferred to the Procurement Division. 

 All personnel employed in connection with the work of an abolished agency or function disposed of shall 

be separated from the service of the United States, except that the head of any successor agency, subject to my 

approval, may within a period of four months after transfer or consolidation, reappoint any of such personnel 

required for the work of the successor agency without reexamination or loss of civil-service status. 

Section 20. – Appropriations 

 Such portions of the unexpended balances of appropriation for any abolished agency or function disposed 

of shall be transferred to the successor agency as the Director of the Budget shall deem necessary. 

 Unexpended balances of appropriations for an abolished agency or function disposed of, not so transferred 

by the Director of the Budget, shall, in accordance with law, be impounded and returned to the Treasury. 

 Section 21. – Definitions 

 As used in this order— 

 “Agency” means any commission, independent establishment, board, bureau, division, service, or office in 

the executive branch of the Government. 

 “Abolished agency” means any agency which is abolished, transferred, or consolidated. 

 “Successor agency” means any agency to which is transferred some other agency or function, or which 

results from the consolidation of other agencies or functions. 

 “Function disposed of” means any function eliminated or transferred. 

Section. 22—Effective Date 

In accordance with law, this order shall become effective 61 days from its date; Provided, That in case 

it shall appear to the President that the interests of economy require that any transfer, consolidation, or 

elimination be delayed beyond the date this order becomes effective, he may, in his discretion, fix a later date 

therefor, and he may for like cause further defer such date from time to time. 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. 

 The White House, 

 June 10, 1933. 

[No. 6166] 

2. Reorganization of Government, Executive Order No. 6228 of July 28, 1933, to make more explicit and 

to interpret Section 2 of Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933 (5 U.S.C. secs. 124-132) 

Executive Order 

 ORGANIZATION OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES 

 Whereas executive order No. 6166 Dated June 10, 1933, issued pursuant to the authority of Section 16 of 

the Act of March 3, 1933 (Public No. 428—47 Stat. 1517) provides in Section 2 as follows: 

 “All functions of administration of public buildings reservations, national parks, national monuments, and 

national cemeteries are consolidated in an office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations in the 

Department of the Interior, at the head of which shall be a Director of National Parks Buildings, and 

Reservations; except that where deemed desirable there may be excluded from this provision any public building 

or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a particular agency. This transfer and 

consolidation of functions shall include, among others, those of the National Park Service of the Department of 
Appendix A: Legislation 

49

the Interior and the National Cemeteries and Parks of the War Department which are located within the 

continental limits of the United States. National Cemeteries located in foreign counties shall be transferred to 

the Department of State, and those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department 

shall be administered by the Bureau of Insular Affairs of the War Department.” 

and; 

 Whereas to facilitate and expedite the transfer and consolidation of certain units and agencies contemplated 

thereby, it is desirable to make more explicit said Section 2 of the aforesaid executive order of June 10, 1933, 

insofar as the same relates to the transfer of agencies now administered by the War Department: 

 

 Now, Therefore, said executive order No. 6166, date June 10, 1933, is hereby interpreted as follows: 

1. The cemeteries and parks of the War Department transferred to the Interior Department are as 

follows: 

NATIONAL MILITARY PARKS 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Georgia and Tennessee. 

Fort Donelson National Military Park, Tennessee. 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battle Fields Memorial, Virginia. 

Gettysburg National Military Park, Pennsylvania. 

Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, North Carolina. 

Kings Mountain National Military Park, South Carolina. 

Moore’s Creek National Military Park, North Carolina 

Petersburg National Military Park, Virginia. 

Shiloh National Military Park, Tennessee. 

Stones River National Military Park, Tennessee. 

Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi. 

NATIONAL PARKS 

Abraham Lincoln National Park, Kentucky. 

Fort McHenry National Park, Maryland. 

BATTLEFIELD SITES 

Antietam Battlefield, Maryland. 

Appomattox, Virginia. 

Brices Cross Roads, Mississippi. 

Chalmette Monument and Grounds, Louisiana. 

Cowpens, South Carolina. 

Fort Necessity, Wharton County,2

 Pennsylvania. 

Kenesaw Mountain, Georgia. 

Monocacy, Maryland. 

Tupelo, Mississippi. 

White Plains, New York. 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS 

Big Hole Battlefield, Beaverhead County, Montana. 

Cabrillo Monument, Ft. Rosecrans, California. 

 

2

 Wharton Township, Fayette County. 
APPENDIXES 

50

Castle Pinckney, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Father Millet Cross, Fort Niagara, New York. 

Fort Marion, St. Augustine, Florida. 

Fort Matanzas, Florida. 

Fort Pulaski, Georgia. 

Meriwether Lewis, Hardin County, Tennessee. 

Mound City Group, Chillicothe, Ohio. 

Statue of Liberty, Fort Wood, New York. 

MISCELLANEOUS MEMORIALS 

Camp Blount Tablets, Lincoln County, Tennessee. 

Kill Devil Hill Monument, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. 

New Echota Marker, Georgia. 

Lee Mansion, Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. 

NATIONAL CEMETERIES 

Battleground, District of Columbia. 

Antietam, (Sharpsburg) Maryland. 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 

Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

Fort Donelson, (Dover) Tennessee. 

Shiloh, (Pittsburg Landing) Tennessee. 

Stones River, (Murfreesboro) Tennessee. 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

Poplar Grove, (Petersburg) Virginia. 

Yorktown, Virginia. 

2. Pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby ordered that the transfer from the War 

Department of national cemeteries other than those named above be, and the same is hereby postponed until 

further order. 

3. Also pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby ordered that the transfer of 

national cemeteries located in foreign countries from the War Department to the Department of State and the 

transfer of those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department to the Bureau 

of Insular Affairs of said Department be, and the same are hereby postponed until further order. 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT 

The White House, 

July 29, 1933. 

[No. 6228]
Appendix A: Legislation 

51

SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CH. 270. 463 

CHAP. 270.-An Act Providing for a comprehensive development of the park and playground system of the 

National Capital. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled. That to preserve the flow of water in Rock Creek, to prevent pollution of Rock Creek and the 

Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, to preserve forests and natural scenery in and about Washington, and to provide 

for the comprehensive systematic, and continuous development of the park, parkway, and playground system of 

the National Capital, there is hereby constituted a commission, to be known as the National Capital, Park 

Commission, composed of the Chief of Engineers of the Army, the Engineer Commissioner of the District of 

Columbia, the Director of the National Park Service, the Chief of the Forest Service, the officer in charge of 

public buildings and grounds and the chairmen of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and 

House of Representatives. At the close of each Congress the Presiding Officer of the Senate and the Speaker of 

the House of Representatives shall appoint, respectively Senator elect and a Representative elect to the 

succeeding Congress to serve as members of this commission until the chairmen of committees of the 

succeeding Congress shall be chosen: The officer in charge of public building sand grounds shall be the 

executive and disbursing officer of said commission. 

Sec. 2. Said commission or a majority thereof is hereby authorized and directed to acquire such lands as in its 

judgment shall be necessary and desirable in the District of Columbia and adjacent areas in Maryland and 

Virginia, within the limits of the appropriations made for such purposes, for suitable development of the 

National Capital park, parkway, and playground system. That said commission is hereby authorized to acquire 

such lands by purchase when they can be acquired at prices reasonable in the judgment of said commission, 

otherwise by condemnation proceedings, such proceeding to acquire lands within the District of Columbia to be 

in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress approved August 30, 1890, providing a site for the 

Government printing Office (United States Statutes at Large, volume 26, chapter 837), the Chief of Engineers of 

the Army being, for the purposes of this Act, hereby clothed with all the power vested by the said Act of August 

30, 1890, in the board created by the Act. Said commission is hereby authorized to acquire such lands, located 

in Maryland or Virginia, either by purchase or condemnation proceedings, by such arrangements as to 

acquisition and payment for the lands as it shall determine upon by agreement with the proper officials of the 

States of Maryland Virginia shall be subject to the approval of the President of the United States. 

Sec. 3. That there is authorized to be appropriated, each year hereafter, in the annual District of Columbia 

Appropriation Act a sum not exceeding one cent for each inhabitant of the continental United States as 

determined by the last preceding decennial census, said sum to be used by said commission for the payment of 

its expenses and for the acquisition of the lands herein authorized to be acquired by said commission for the 

purposes named, the compensation for the land, the expense of surveys, ascertainment of title, condemnation 

proceedings, if any, and necessary conveyancing to be paid from said appropriations. The funds so appropriated 

shall be paid from the revenues of the District of Columbia and the general funds of the Treasury in the same 

proportion as other expenses of the District of Columbia. The land so acquired within the District of Columbia 

shall be a part of the park system of the District of Columbia and be under control of the Chief of Engineers of 

the United States Army; that areas suitable for playground purposes may in the discretion of said Commission, 

be assigned to the control of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia for playground purposes. That the 

land so acquired outside the District of Columbia shall be controlled as determined by agreement between said 

commission and the proper officers of the State of Maryland and Virginia, such agreements to be subject to the 

approval of the President. 

Sec. 4. Said commission shall report to Congress annually on the first Monday of December the lands acquired 

during the preceding fiscal year, the method of acquisition, and the cost of each tract. It shall also submit to the 

Bureau of the Budget on or before and the cost of each tract. It shall submit to the Bureau of the Budget on or 

before September 15 of each year its estimate of the total sum to appropriated for expenditure under the 

provisions of this Act during the succeeding fiscal year. 

Approved, June 6, 1924 
APPENDIXES 

52

CAPPER-CRAMTON ACT 

Act of May 29, 1930 (46 Stat. 482), as amended by the Act of August 8, 1946 (60 Stat. 960), Section 3 of the 

Act of July 19, 1952 (66 Stat. 781, 791), and the Act of August 21, 1958 (72 Stat. 705). 

An Act for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway along 

the Potomac from Mount Vernon and Fort Washington to the Great Falls, and to provide for the acquisition of 

lands in the District of Columbia and the States of Maryland and Virginia requisite to the comprehensive park, 

parkway, and playground system of the National Capital. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled, that there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $13,500,000, or so much thereof as may 

be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for acquiring and developing, except 

as in this section otherwise provided, in accordance with the provision of the Act of June 6, 1924, entitled “An 

Act providing for a comprehensive development of the park and playground system of the National Capital,” as 

amended, such lands in the States of Maryland Virginia as are necessary and desirable for the park and parkway 

system of the National Capital in the environs of Washington. Such funds shall be appropriated as required for 

the expeditious, economical, and efficient development and completion of the following projects: 

(a) For the George Washington Memorial Parkway, to include the shores of the Potomac, and adjacent lands, 

from Mount Vernon to a point above the Great Falls on the Virginia side, except within the City of Alexandria, 

and from Fort Washington to a similar point above the Great Falls on the Maryland side except within the 

District of Columbia, and including the protection and preservation of the natural scenery of the Gorge and the 

Great Falls of the Potomac, the preservation of the historic Patowmack Canal, and the acquisition of that portion 

of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal below Point of Rocks, $7,500,00; Provided, That the acquisition of any land 

in the Potomac River Valley for park purposes shall not debar, limit, or abridge its use for such works as 

Congress may in the future authorize for the improvement and the extension of navigation, including the 

connecting of the upper Potomac River with the Ohio River, or for flood control irrigation or drainage, or for the 

development of hydroelectric power. 

The title to the lands acquired hereunder shall vest in the United States, and said lands, including the Mount 

Vernon Memorial Highway authorized by the Act approved May 23, 1928, upon its completion, shall be 

maintained and administered by the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, who 

shall exercise all the authority, power, and duties with respect to lands acquired under this section as are 

conferred upon him within the District of Columbia by the Act approved February 26, 1925; and said director is 

authorized to incur such expenses as may be necessary for the proper administration and maintenance of said 

lands within the limits of the appropriations from time to time granted therefor from the Treasury of the United 

States, which appropriations are hereby authorized. 

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission is authorized to occupy such lands belonging to the United 

States as may be necessary for the development and protection of said parkway and to accept the donation to the 

United States of any other lands by it deemed desirable for inclusion in said parkway. As to any lands in 

Maryland or Virginia along or adjacent to the shores of the Potomac within the proposed limits of the parkway 

that would involve great expense for their acquisition and are held by said commission not to be essential to the 

proper carrying out of the project, the acquisition of said lands shall not be required, upon a finding of the 

commission to that effect. 

Said parkway shall include a highway from Fort Washington to the Great Falls on the Maryland side of the 

Potomac and a free bridge across the Potomac at or near Great Falls and necessary approaches to said bridge; 

Provided, That no money shall be expended by the United States for lands for any unit of this project until the 

National Capital Park and Planning Commission shall have received definite commitments from the State of 

Maryland or Virginia, or political subdivisions thereof or from other responsible sources for one-half the cost of 

acquiring the lands in its judgment necessary for such unit of said project deemed by said commission 

sufficiently complete, other than lands now belonging to the United States or donated to the United States; 
Appendix A: Legislation 

53

Provided, That in the discretion of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, upon agreement duly 

entered into the State of Maryland and Virginia or any political subdivision thereof to reimburse the United 

States as hereinafter provided, it may advance the full amount of the funds necessary for the acquisition of the 

lands in any such unit referred to in this paragraph, such agreement providing for reimbursement to the United 

States to the extent of one-half of the cost thereof within interest within no more than eight years from the date of 

any such expenditure; Provided further, That in the discretion of the National Capital Planning Commission, 

upon agreement duly entered into between that Commission and the Maryland National Capital Park and 

Planning Commission, an agency of the State of Maryland, created by chapter 448 of the laws of Maryland of 

1927, as amended, such portion of the said $7,500,000 authorized to be appropriated under this paragraph as the 

said Federal and Maryland agencies may determine may be appropriated for the purposes set forth under 

paragraph (b) of this section and subject to the conditions imposed by that paragraph. The appropriation of the 

amount necessary for such advance, in addition to the contribution by the United States, is hereby authorized 

from any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

(b) For the extension of Rock creek into Maryland, as may be agreed upon between the National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, for the 

preservation of the flow of water in Rock Creek, for the extension of the Anacostia Park system up the valley of 

the Anacostia River, Indian Creek, Paint Branch and Little Paint Branch, the Northwest Branch and Sligo Creek; 

of the Oxon Run Parkway from the District of Columbia line to Marlboro Road; and of the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway up the valley of Cabin John Creek, Little Falls Branch, and Willet Run, as my be agreed 

upon between the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Maryland National Capital Park 

Commission, $1,500,00; Provided, That no appropriation authorized in this subsection shall be available for 

expenditure until a suitable agreement is entered into by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and 

the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission as to sewage disposal and storm water flow; Provided further, 

That no money shall be contributed by the United States for any unit of such extensions until the National 

Capital Park and Planning Commission shall have received definite commitments from the Maryland National 

Capital Park and Planning Commission for the balance of the cost of acquiring such unit of said extensions 

deemed by said commission sufficiently complete, other than lands now belonging to the United States or 

donated to the United States; Provided further, That in the discretion of the National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission upon agreement duly entered into with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission to reimburse the United States as hereinafter provided, it may advance the full amount of the funds 

necessary for the acquisition of the lands required for such extensions referred to in this paragraph, such 

advance, exclusive of said contribution $1,500,000 by the United States, not to exceed $3,000,000, the 

appropriation of which amount from funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated is 

hereby authorized, such agreement providing for reimbursement to the United States of such advance, exclusive 

of said Federal contribution, without interest within not more than eight years from the date of any such 

expenditure. The title to the lands acquired hereunder shall vest in the State of Maryland. The development and 

administration thereof shall be under the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission and in 

accordance with plans approved by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 

(c) For the extension of the park and parkway system of the National Capital in the Virginia environs of 

Washington, as my be agreed upon between the National Capital Planning Commission and a park authority 

established under the Park Authorities Act of the State of Virginia (and such other public bodies as my be 

authorized under the laws of the State of Virginia), up the valleys of Hunting Creek, Cameron Run, Homes Run, 

Tripps Run, Four Mile Run, Pimmit Run, Accotink Creek, and tributaries of such streams, and over other 

desirable lands, $4,500,000. No part of such sum shall be expended by the United States for any unit or such 

extension until the National Capital Planning Commission has received definite commitments from such park 

authority (and other public bodies, and the State of Virginia for two-thirds of the cost of acquiring the lands in its 

judgment necessary for such unit of the extension deemed by the Commission sufficiently complete. The title to 

the lands acquired hereunder shall vest in, and the development and administration thereof shall be under, such 

park authority or the State of Virginia in accordance with plans approved by the National Capital Planning 

Commission. Such lands shall not be used for any purpose other than the development and completion of the 

park and parkway system provided for in this paragraph, except with the approval and consent of the National 

Capital Planning Commission. No appropriation authorized in this paragraph shall be available for expenditure 
APPENDIXES 

54

until a suitable agreement has been entered into between the National Capital Planning Commission and the 

appropriate local authority as to sewage disposal and storm-water flow. 

Sec. 2. Whenever it becomes necessary to acquire by condemnation proceedings any lands in the States of 

Virginia or Maryland for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, such acquisition shall be under 

and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 1, 1888 (U.S.C., p. 1302, sec. 257). No payment 

shall be made for any such lands until the title thereto in the United States shall be satisfactory to the Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Sec. 3. Whenever the use of the Forts Washington, Foote, and Hunt, or either of them, is no longer deemed 

necessary for military purposes they shall be turned over to the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of 

the National Capital, without cost, for administration and maintenance as a part of the said George Washington 

Memorial Parkway. 

 

Sec. 4. There is hereby further authorized to be appropriated the sum of $16,000,000, or so much thereof as may 

be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, for the acquiring 

of such lands in the District of Columbia as are necessary and desirable for the suitable development of the 

National Capital park, parkway, and playground system, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 

June 6, 1924, as amended, except as in this section otherwise provided. Such funds shall be appropriated for 

fiscal year 1931 and thereafter as required for the expeditious, economical, and efficient accomplishment of the 

purposes of this Act and shall be reimbursed to the United States from any funds in the Treasury to the credit of 

the District of Columbia follows, to wit: $1,000,000 on the 30th day of June, 1931; and $1,000,000 on the 30th

day of June each year thereafter until the full amount expended hereunder is reimbursed without interest. 

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission shall, before purchasing any lands hereunder for 

playground, recreation center, community center, and similar municipal purposes, request from the 

Commissioners of the District of Columbia a report thereon. Said commission is authorized to accept the 

donation to the United States of any lands deemed desirable for inclusion in said park, parkway, and playground 

system, and the donation of any funds for the acquisition of such lands under this act. 

Sec. 5. The right of Congress to alter or amend this Act is hereby reserved. 

Sec. 6. Section 4 of Public Act 297 of the Seventieth Congress entitled “An Act authorizing the Great Falls 

Bridge Company, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Potomac 

River at or near Great Falls,” approved April 21, 1928, as amended, is hereby amended by adding at the end of 

said section the following: 

“Provided, That after the George Washington Memorial Parkway is established and the lands necessary for such 

parkway at and near Great Falls have been acquired by the United States, the United States may at any time 

acquire and take over all right, title, and interest in such bridge, its approached and approach roads, and any 

interest in real property necessary therefore, by purchase or by condemnation, paying therefor not more than the 

cost of said bridge and its approaches and approach roads, as determined by the Secretary of War under section 6 

of this Act plus 10 per centum.” 
Appendix A: Legislation 

55

An Act to facilitate the management of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas administered in 

connection with that system, and for other purposes, approved August 8, 1953 (67 Stat. 495) 

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled, That, in order to facilitate the administration of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas 

administered in connection therewith, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to carry out the following 

activities, and he may use applicable appropriations for the aforesaid system and miscellaneous areas for the 

following purposes: 

 1. Rendering of emergency rescue, fire fighting, and cooperative assistance to nearby law enforcement and 

fire prevention agencies and for related purposes of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas. 

 2. The erection and maintenance of fire protection facilities, water lines, telephone lines, electric lines, and 

other utility facilities adjacent to any area of the said national Park System and miscellaneous areas, where 

necessary, to provide service in such area. 

 3. Transportation to and from work, outside of regular working hours, of employees of Carlsbad Caverns 

National Park, residing in or near the city of Carlsbad, New Mexico, such transportation to be between the park 

and the city, or intervening points, at reasonable rates to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior taking 

into consideration, among other factors, comparable rates charged by transportation companies in the locality for 

similar services, the amounts collected for such transportation to be credited to the appropriation current at the 

time payment is received: Provided, That if adequate transportation facilities are available, or shall be available 

by any common carrier, at reasonable rates, then and in that event the facilities contemplated by this paragraph 

shall not be offered. 

 4. Furnishing, on a reimbursement of appropriation bases, all types of utility services to concessioners, 

contractors, permittees, or other users of such services, within the National Park System and miscellaneous 

areas: Provided, That reimbursements for cost of such utility services may be credited to the appropriation 

current at the time reimbursements are received. 

 5. Furnishing, on a reimbursement of appropriation basis, supplies, and the rental of equipment to persons 

and agencies that in cooperation with, and subject the approval of, the Secretary of the Interior, render services 

or perform functions that facilitate or supplement the activities of the Department of the Interior in the 

administration of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas: Provided, That reimbursements hereunder 

may be credited to the appropriation current at the time reimbursements are received. 

 6. Contracting, under such terms and conditions as the said Secretary considers to be in the interest of the 

Federal Government, for the sale, operation, maintenance, repair, or relocation of Government-owned electric 

and telephone lines and other utility facilities used for the administration and protection of the National Park 

System and miscellaneous areas, regardless of whether such lines and facilities are located within or outside said 

system and areas. 

 7. Acquiring such rights-of-way as may be necessary to construct, improve, and maintain roads within the 

authorized boundaries of any area of the said National Park System and miscellaneous areas, and the acquisition 

also of land and interest in land adjacent to such rights-of-way, when deemed necessary by the Secretary, to 

provide adequate protection of natural features or to avoid traffic and other hazards resulting from private road 

access connections, or when the acquisition of adjacent residual tracts, which otherwise would remain after 

acquiring such rights-of-way, would be in the public interest. 

 8. The operation, repair, maintenance, and replacement of motor and other equipment on a reimbursable 

basis when such equipment is used on Federal projects of the said National Park System and miscellaneous 

areas, chargeable to other appropriations, or on work of other Federal agencies, when requested by such 

agencies. Reimbursement shall be made from appropriations applicable to the work on which the equipment is 

used at rental rates established by the Secretary, based on actual or estimated cost of operation, repair, 

maintenance, depreciation, and equipment management control, and credited to appropriations currently 

available at the time adjustment is effected, and the Secretary may also rent equipment for fire control purposes 

to State, county, private, or other non-Federal agencies that cooperate with the Secretary in the administration of 

the said National Park System and other areas in fire control, such rental to be under the terms of written 

cooperative agreements, the amount collected for such rentals to be credited to appropriations currently available 

at the time payment is received. (16 U.S.C. § 1b.) 

 Sec. 2. (a) The term “National Park System” means all federally owned or controlled lands which are 

administered under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 

August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), as amended, and which are grouped into the following descriptive categories: (1) 
APPENDIXES 

56

National parks, (2) national monuments, (3) national historical parks, (4) national memorials, (5) national 

parkways, and (6) national capital parks. 

 (b) The term “miscellaneous areas” includes lands under the administrative jurisdiction of another Federal 

agency, or lands in private ownership, and over which the National Park Service, under the direction of the 

Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to cooperative agreement, exercises supervision for recreational, historical, or 

other related purposes, and also any lands under the care and custody of the National Park Service other than 

those heretofore described in this section. (16 U.S.C. § 1c.) 

 Sec. 3. Hereafter applicable appropriations of the National Park Service shall be available for the objects and 

purposes specified in the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 885). (16 U.S.C. § 1d.) 

An Act To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and for 

other purposes, approved June 13, 1957 (71 Stat. 69) 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled, That the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby further 

amended as follows: 

 By designating paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) of section 507 as paragraphs (3) and (4) and adding 

a new paragraph (2) to read as follows: 

 “(2) to direct and effect the transfer to the National Archives of the United States of any records of any 

Federal agency that have been in existence for more that fifty years and that are determined by the Archivist to 

have sufficient historical or other value to warrant their continued preservation by the United States Government, 

unless the head of the agency which has custody of them shall certify in writing to the Administrator that they 

must be retained in his custody for use in the conduct of the regular current business of the said agency.” (44 

U.S.C. § 697).
57

APPENDIX B: COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS 

When implementing the actions described in the 

Draft Management Plan / Environmental Assessment,

the National Park Service will adhere to applicable 

laws, executive orders, and regulations (except where 

noted and explained in the alternatives). These 

precepts include the following: 

GENERAL 

• The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 USC 

4151 et seq.); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 

USC 701 et seq.); and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 101-336, 104 Stat. 

327) 

The above acts require that all developed facilities 

and programs be made as accessible as possible to 

special populations. 

• Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-income Populations 

Under policy established by the secretary of the 

interior to comply with this executive order, 

departmental agencies should identify and evaluate, 

during the scoping and/or planning processes, any 

anticipated effects, either direct or indirect, from the 

proposed project or action on minority and lowincome populations and communities, including the 

equity of the distribution of the benefits and risks. 

None of the impacts of any of the alternatives would 

fall disproportionately on either the minority or lowincome members of the region. The following facts 

contributed to this conclusion: 

None of the alternatives would result in any identifiable adverse human health effects. Therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect negative or adverse 

effects on any minority or low-income population or 

community. 

The impacts on the natural and physical environment 

that would result from implementing one of the 

alternatives would not appreciably and adversely 

affect any minority or low-income population or 

community. 

The proposed action would not result in any 

identified effects that would be specific to any 

minority or low-income community. 

The National Park Service has had an active public 

participation program to solicit information and 

comments and has equally considered all public input 

regardless of age, race, income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

Impacts on the socioeconomic environment that 

would result from implementing alternatives 2 or 3 

would be marginally positive. These impacts would 

not occur all at one time but would be spread over a 

number of years. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

• The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.) 

The National Park Service is mandated to preserve 

and protect cultural resources as stated in the act of 

August 25, 1916, which established the National Park 

Service, and in specific legislation such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation 

Act. The cultural resources of the Fort Circle Parks 

are to be managed in accordance with these acts and 

in accordance with NPS Management Policies, NPS28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines 

for Archeology and Historic Preservation, and other 

policy directives. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended, defines the obligations of the 

federal government regarding activities proposed for 

or affecting properties on or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Federal agencies 

are required to take into account the potential effects 

of their activities on protected resources and to allow 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

the state historic preservation officer an opportunity 

to comment. Actions are determined to have no 

effect, an adverse effect, or an effect that is not 

adverse on cultural resources. Before this plan is 

implemented, the National Park Service would work 

with the historic preservation officers of Washington, 

D.C., the commonwealth of Virginia, and the state of 
APPENDIXES

58

Maryland, as well as the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, to meet the requirements of 

section 106. 

An internal section 106 form (“Assessment of 

Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources”) 

will be completed following the approval of this plan 

but before the implementation of the individual 

proposed actions. The form will document project 

effects, outline actions to mitigate such effects, and 

document that the proposed action flowed from an 

approved plan meeting section 106 requirements. 

Cultural resource management specialists will review 

and certify all proposed actions affecting cultural 

resources. 

As part of the cultural resource management 

responsibilities mandated by section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, the 

National Park Service inventories and evaluates all 

cultural resources on land under its jurisdiction or 

that could be affected by agency actions. Cultural 

resources are evaluated by applying the criteria for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Until a complete archeological inventory and evaluation of the Fort Circle Parks can be completed, all 

ground-disturbing actions will be preceded by an 

archeological evaluation to determine the level of 

investigation required before construction can begin. 

Because all alternatives recommend a course of 

action that might affect cultural resources listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places, the National 

Park Service will work closely with the historic preservation officers of the District of Columbia, the 

commonwealth of Virginia, and the state of Maryland, as well as with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation and the National Capital 

Planning Commission to determine a course of action 

that will avoid, reduce, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects. Local community, park neighbors, park users, 

D.C. Area Neighborhood Councils, local government 

preservation, park and planning agencies, also will be 

involved in reviewing and commenting on this plan. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

This act sets forth the federal policy to preserve 

important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage. It requires federal agencies to use a 

systematic, interdisciplinary approach that integrates 

natural and social sciences in planning and decisionmaking that may impact the human environment. 

This environmental assessment was prepared 

pursuant to this act and its implementing regulations 

and guidelines. Implementing this plan will require 

ongoing adherence to the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

• Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(42 USC 7401 et seq.) 

Washington, D.C., is in a class II clean air area. 

Under the Clean Air Act, as amended, maximum 

allowable increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, and nitrogen oxide beyond baseline concentrations established for class II areas cannot be 

exceeded. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires 

all federal facilities to comply with federal, state, and 

local air pollution control laws and regulations. 

National Park Service staff would coordinate with the 

appropriate District of Columbia, Commonwealth of 

Virginia, and State of Maryland offices to ensure that 

all project activities would meet the requirements of 

federal and local air quality programs. 

• Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

Executive Order 11988 directs agencies to avoid 

development in floodplains whenever there is a 

practicable alternative. The NPS Floodplain 

Management Guideline provides requirements for 

implementing floodplain protection and management 

actions in units of the national park system. However, 

the guideline does not apply to certain park functions 

near water for the enjoyment of visitors and for 

activities that do not involve overnight use such as 

trails and picnic areas. 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended 

(16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all 

federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency does not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

critical habitat. Consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has revealed federally listed 

threatened, or endangered species in the vicinity of 

the Fort Circle Parks. Appropriate measures would be 

taken to avoid adverse impacts on these species as a 

result of implementing actions in this management 

plan. 
Appendix B: Compliance with Federal and State Laws, Executive Orders, and Regulations 

59

• Permits 

The District of Columbia, Prince Georges and 

Montgomery Counties in Maryland, and Arlington 

County in Virginia have permit requirements 

affecting the sites. The sites must meet sanitary and 

storm water criteria that are applicable for projects in 

Washington, D.C., and Prince Georges, Montgomery, 

and Arlington Counties. Any other activities related 

to construction will be conducted in compliance with 

all applicable state and federal regulations. 

• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 

1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899 (33 USC 401 et seq.) 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for 

work affecting navigable waters and wetlands of the 

United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

regulates the discharge of dredged material into U.S. 

waters, including both navigable waters and wetlands 

of the United States. If proposed actions would impact U.S. waters —- surface water resources in and 

near the Fort Circle Parks — these actions would be 

subject to review by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; a 404 permit, which is issued by the Corps 

of Engineers, would be required. 

NPS management policies require the National Park 

Service to examine impacts on water resources, specifically impacts on the preservation, use, and quality 

of water originating, flowing through, or adjacent to 

park boundaries. The National Park Service seeks to 

restore, maintain, and enhance the quality of all 

surface water and groundwater within the parks, 

consistent with all other federal, state, and local laws 

and regulations. In addition, the 1972 Federal Water 

 Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean 

Water Act of 1977, is a national policy to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters; enhance the quality of 

water resources; and prevent, control, and abate water 

pollution. 

• Storm Water Rule 

Under the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, 

a storm water rule has been promulgated to regulate 

storm water discharges. The storm water rule (40 

CFR, parts 122, 123, and 124) requires that a national 

pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) 

storm water permit be obtained for construction 

activities affecting over 5 acres. The District of 

Columbia, which has been granted authority to administer NPDES permits by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, administers the storm water 

permitting program. 

• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to 

avoid, where possible, impacts on wetlands. Any 

permitting required under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act and any state requirements for proposed 

actions will be met. 

Any impacts on wetlands could only occur under the 

guidance provided within Director’s Order 77-1, 

which may include more stringent requirements than 

permits required only under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. 
60

APPENDIX C: CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON FORT 

SITES OUTSIDE NPS OWNERSHIP 

INTRODUCTION 

A number of forts that are not within NPS units are 

owned and managed by other public agencies in the 

Washington, D.C., area. These agencies are potential 

partners for coordinated interpretive and other 

programs that would relate to the entire Civil War 

defense system surrounding Washington. Most of the 

Civil War forts and batteries have been lost to urban 

and suburban development, but the following in 

public ownership have survived to the present. 

Fort Ward 

Historic Fort Ward and the Fort Ward Museum are 

within a 45-acre site in the city of Alexandria, Virginia. The city initiated the preservation of the fort in 

1961 as a Civil War Centennial project and has completely restored the fort’s northwest bastion. The 

other remaining earthworks have been preserved, and 

the ceremonial gate and officers’ hut have been reconstructed. The Fort Ward Museum, adjacent to the 

fort, interprets the site’s history and features exhibits 

about the fort system and a variety of Civil War topics. The museum also contains a research library and 

a collection of Civil War artifacts, and it offers 

educational and interpretive programs throughout the 

year, including an interpretive video. This restored 

bastion presents the capital area’s best demonstration 

of how the Civil War forts appeared, and the museum 

and research collection are a source of extensive 

information on the Civil War defense system. 

Fort C. F. Smith 

Fort C. F. Smith is on a 19-acre estate that Arlington 

County, Virginia, acquired in 1995 and opened to the 

public in 1997. Plans are to preserve and interpret the 

earthworks in their existing condition.. The tree canopy and stabilizing ground cover will be maintained. 

The park interprets the Civil War, the fort, the defenses of Washington, and the prehistory of the sites, 

landscape, archeology, and natural resources. 

Fort Ethan Allen 

Arlington County also owns and manages Fort Ethan 

Allen. Earthworks and trenches are evident in this 

location. Interpretive markers have been placed in the 

site, which is in a historic district. Few visitors come 

who are interested in the history of the fort. 

The Virginia Civil War Trail Project has provided 

uniform signs for the forts listed above. To encourage 

tourism to the historic sites, maps and literature are 

being produced that will identify over 200 Virginia 

Civil War sites. 

Fort Whipple 

Fort Whipple occupied the site of present-day Fort 

Myer, adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery. 

Although there are no remnants of the original 

defenses, an interpretive sign was placed at the site in 

the spring of 1998, and there are plans to acquire a 

cannon to mark the site. 

Fairfax County Sites 

A number of remnant Civil War fortifications are in 

Fairfax County, Virginia, but very little preservation 

or interpretation has been accomplished. The sites 

include unstabilized earthworks remaining at Fort 

Willard and a six-gun battery position near the location of Fort Farnsworth. A sign has been placed at a 

partial reconstruction of what is known as “Fort 

Freedom Hill” in Vienna, Virginia, which was a 

fortified position. 

Battery Bailey 

Battery Bailey is the sole remnant of the Civil War 

Defenses in Montgomery County, Maryland. The 

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning 

Commission purchased the property in 1951, and the 

Montgomery County Department of Parks manages 

the site. The battery is in a park adjacent to the 

Westmoreland Hills Recreation Center. The earthworks have been stabilized, and split-rail fencing 

surrounds the site to prevent foot traffic on the 

earthworks. A historical marker has been erected and 

an interpretive display faces the battery. 

Other Related Sites 

A number of Civil War related historic sites in the 

Washington, D.C., area could be interpreted in 
Appendix C: Fort Sites Outside NPS Ownership 

61

relation to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. 

These are listed below: 

• Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, 

served as a headquarters for the Union Army 

generals who commanded the system of forts. 

The memorial is managed by the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway and is within 

Arlington National Cemetery, not far from the 

site of Fort Whipple. 

• President Lincoln and Soldiers’ Home National 

Monument includes Anderson Cottage, on the 

grounds of the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s 

Home. Anderson Cottage was President 

Lincoln’s summer White House and retreat from 

the city. He spent approximately one-fourth of 

his presidency at the site, and it was there that he 

wrote the final draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. The cottage is about a mile from Fort 

Stevens. Lincoln traveled from there to witness 

the battle in 1864. 

• The Montgomery County Department of Parks 

manages sites associated with the Battle of Fort 

Stevens. Confederate officers during the battle 

occupied the Jessup Blair House. At the nearby 

“Silver Spring” a shell from the fort killed a 

Confederate soldier. In Woodside Park, at 

Georgia Avenue and Spring Street, a plaque has 

been placed interpreting the attack of Jubal 

Early’s forces. 

• The graveyard of Grace Episcopal Church, 

several miles north on Georgia Avenue, is the 

burial site of unknown Confederate soldiers 

killed in the Battle of Fort Stevens. 

• Walter Reed Medical Center also has a site associated with the Battle of Fort Stevens. A sign 

marks the site of the “sharp-shooter tree” used by 

Confederate soldiers during the battle. There is 

also a medical museum containing Civil War era 

exhibits. 
62

APPENDIX D: COST ESTIMATES 

The cost estimates below are “Class C” cost 

estimates. Because the plan is conceptual, these 

represent a “best guess” estimate and have a 

relatively low degree of accuracy. These estimates, 

which are based on the cost of similar construction, provide a means of comparing the alternatives 

but should not be used for funding requests. 

Once design planning begins, the scope of work 

necessary will be reevaluated. A second, somewhat 

more accurate, “Class B” estimate will be made 

following preliminary design. A third, “Class A” 

estimate will be made at the end of design and with 

completed construction documents in hand. 

Like the “Class C” cost estimate, the “life cycle 

costs” shown below are for comparison purposes 

only. They provide a means of indicating the 

yearly and total costs over the life of the plan for 

each alternative but are subject to the same low 

degree of accuracy attendant at this stage of 

development. 

In the Draft Management Plan / Environmental 

Assessment, the ONPS item was inadvertently left 

off the cost estimate table for alternative 3. That 

amount would have been $375,000, and the 

ongoing operating cost for that alternative would 

have been $566,000. This document presents a 

cost estimate table for the approved plan, a 

combination of the previous alternatives 2 and 3. 

THE PLAN — COMBINED ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 

Element 

Initial Capital 

Costs 

Ongoing Operating 

Costs ($ per year) 

Designate foot trail linking forts; 

produce interpretive materials $1,330,000 $110,000 

Repair and/or upgrade recreational 

facilities (ballfields, basketball and 

tennis courts, picnic areas) 290,000 25,000 

Stabilize selected earthwork and 

perform selected vegetation 

management 260,000 114,000 

Upgrade existing restrooms, street 

furniture, and parking 633,000 50,000 

Restore the CCC-era Fort Stevens 

earthworks 125,000 17,000 

Develop logo, audiotape, and 

videotape for Fort Circle Parks 345,000 3,000 

Purchase furnishings for visitor contact 

facility to be developed near Fort 

Stevens 76,000 4,000r 

Additional ONPS (Operation of the 

National Park Service funds (include 

staff salaries) per year 

(currently $1.04 million)* none 320,000 

Total anticipated costs $3,059,000 $643,000 

* ONPS, or “Operation of the National Park Service” funds include staff salaries. None of the 

three parks breaks out staff time and costs specifically for the Fort Circle Parks.
63

APPENDIX E: FORT CIRCLE PARKS — 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SITES 

Site Description Location Condition 

Fort Foote 

Rural forested site on the Potomac 

River; Rodman cannons; interpretive 

signs; trail; picnic area; river access 

Prince Georges County, 

MD 

Earthworks in good 

condition 

Fort Greble Wooded area; interpretive sign; 

remains of rifle trenches 

I-295, near Elmira St. and 

Nichols Ave. SW 

Vegetation and understory are overgrown 

Fort Carroll 

Mixed forested area; small picnic area 

and pavilion; interpretive sign; 

remains of rifle trenches 

I-295, near South Capitol 

St. and Martin Luther 

King Blvd. SW 

Vegetation and understory are overgrown 

Fort Stanton 

Mixed forest with open fields; partial 

ruins of substantial fort site; 

hiker/biker trail; interpretive sign 

W Street, Good Hope Rd. 

and Fort Dr. SE 

Fort ruins overgrown 

with vegetation; 

hiker/biker trail eroded 

Battery Ricketts 

Mixed forest with open field; small 

picnic area and pavilion; interpretive 

sign; remains of rifle trenches 

W Street, Good Hope Rd. 

and Fort Dr. SE 

Rifle trenches are 

overgrown with vegetation and understory 

Fort Circle Corridor 

East 

Largely wooded corridor; hiker/biker 

trail 

Battery Ricketts to Fort 

Davis, Fort Davis to Fort 

Dupont, Fort Dupont to 

Fort Chaplin, Fort 

Chaplin to Fort Mahan 

Hiker/biker trail eroded 

in sections 

Fort Davis 

Mixed forest and mowed field; 

basketball court; hiker/biker trail; 

interpretive sign; Fort Davis Dr.; 

small fort ruins 

Near Pennsylvania Ave. 

and Alabama Ave. SE 

Fort ruins overgrown 

but in good condition; 

hiker/biker trail eroded 

Fort Dupont 

Mixed forest, fields, and transition 

areas; picnic areas, community gardens, activity center; amphitheater; 

ice rink; hiker/biker trail; Fort Davis 

and Fort Dupont Drs., Randall Circle 

within park boundaries; interpretive 

trail and signs; picnic area with tables; 

fort ruins 

Bounded by Alabama, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota Aves. and Ridge 

Rd.; fort site entrance on 

Alabama Ave. SE 

Fort ruins overgrown 

but in good condition; 

picnic area and road 

encroach on historic 

resource 

Fort Chaplin 

Mixed forest with open areas; D.C. 

day camp; picnic tables; hiker/biker 

trail; interpretive signs; fort ruins 

East Capitol St. and 

Texas Ave. SE 

Fort ruins in good condition; lack of interpretation and designated 

access to historic 

resource 

Fort Mahan 

Mixed forest and fields; ballfield; 

picnic tables; interpretive sign; 

perimeter trail; hiker/biker trail; rifle 

trenches 

Benning Rd. and 42nd St. 

NE 

Remaining historic fort 

and rifle trenches 

overgrown; hiker/biker 

trail eroded 

Fort Bunker Hill 

Mixed forest and fields; picnic table; 

amphitheater; interpretive sign; fort 

remains 

Between 13th and 14th 

Sts. and Otis and Perry 

Sts. SE 

Partial remains of fort 

small, but in good 

condition 

Barnard Hill Mixed forest and fields; loop road 

with picnic area; interpretive sign 

Eastern Ave. and Bunker 

Hill NE 

Mixed woods and green 

fields in good condition 

Fort Circle Corridor 

at Gallatin and 

Galloway Streets 

Mowed green strip with wooded 

areas; baseball field; identification 

sign 

Between Gallatin and 

Galloway Sts. from 

Eastern Ave. to Fort 

Totten NE 

Mowed areas in good 

condition adjacent to 

wooded strips with thick 

understory 
APPENDIXES

64

Site Description Location Condition 

Fort Totten 

Mixed forest with open fields; picnic 

tables; community gardens; 

interpretive sign; earthworks 

Adjacent to Fort Totten 

Metro station, Fort Totten 

Dr. and Gallatin St. NE 

Significant erosion of 

original earthworks 

Fort Circle Corridor — Fort Totten to 

Fort Slocum 

Mowed green strip with mixed 

woods; community gardens; 

identification sign 

Between Fort Drive and 

1st St., between Gallatin 

St., 3rd St., and 

Oglethorpe St. NE 

Mowed grassy areas in 

good condition 

Fort Slocum 

Mixed forest with open fields; picnic 

pavilion; interpretive sign; rifle 

trenches 

Kansas Ave. and Madison St. NW Few remains of rifle 

trenches overgrown 

Fort Circle Corridor — Fort Slocum 

to Fort Stevens 

Mowed green strip; community 

gardens; identification sign 

From 3rd St. and Piney 

Branch Rd. to Fort Dr. 

and Missouri Ave. NW 

Mowed grassy areas in 

good condition 

Fort Stevens 

Partially reconstructed fort with 

earthworks; two cannons; monuments 

and plaques 

Piney Branch Rd. and 

Quackenbos Rd. NW 

Partially reconstructed 

fort needs rehabilitation; 

earthworks in fair 

condition 

Battleground 

Cemetery 

National military cemetery; pavilion 

and flagpole; historic caretaker lodge 

Georgia Ave. between 

Van Buren and Whittier 

Sts. NW 

Cemetery and caretaker’s lodge in good 

condition 

Fort Circle Corridor — Fort Stevens 

to Fort DeRussy 

Mowed green strip with wooded area; 

community gardens 

Between Fort Stevens 

and Oregon Ave. near 

Military Rd. NW 

Mowed grassy areas in 

moderately good condition; some erosion 

from foot traffic 

Fort DeRussy 

Mixed forest; monument; interpretive 

sign; earthworks 

Rock Creek Park NW Extensive erosion of 

earthworks; overgrown 

with vegetation 

Fort Circle Corridor — Fort DeRussy 

to Fort Reno 

Mixed forest and mowed areas Along Fort Dr, between 

Fort DeRussy and 

Nebraska Ave. NW 

Wooded and open fields 

in good condition 

Fort Reno 

Recreation fields, multiple-use ballfields; some trees; community gardens; DC reservoir; interpretive sign Chesapeake and 40th Sts. 

NW 

Playing fields in good 

condition 

Fort Bayard Playground, ballfield Western Ave. and River 

Road NW 

Playground and ballfield 

in good condition 

Fort Circle Corridor — Fort Reno to 

Battery Kemble 

Mowed grassy parcels Nebraska Ave. NW Parcels in good 

condition 

Battery Kemble Wooded ravine; recreation trail; 

picnic tables; interpretive sign 

Near Chain Bridge Rd. 

NW 

Areas overgrown but in 

good condition 

Fort Marcy 

Mixed forest with open areas; parking 

lot; picnic tables; interpretive signs; 

cannon; rifle trenches; earthworks 

George Washington 

Memorial Pkwy, Fairfax 

County, VA. 

Earthworks and rifle 

trench in excellent 

condition 

 
65

REFERENCES CITED 

Fred Tuemmler and Associates 

 1965 “Fort Park System.” Prepared for the National Capital Planning Commission by Fred 

Tuemmler and Associates, urban and regional planning consultants, College Park, 

MD. 

McMillan Commission 

 1902 McMillan Commission Report. 

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee 

 1997 Air Quality Trends in the Metropolitan Washington Area: 1985–1996. Washington, 

DC. 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

 1994 Cooperative Forecasting: Round Five Technical Report. 

National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior 

 1968 Fort Circle Parks Master Plan. 

 1996 “Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C.: A Cultural Landscape Inventory,” by 

Jacqui Handly. 

 1998a “Guide to Sustainable Earthworks Management” 

 2001 Management Policies 2001. 

 
66

PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Denver Service Center 

Craig Cellar, Job Captain. Responsible for coordinating data collection, writing general sections and 

descriptions of the alternatives. B.A., Anthropology, and B.A., History; 28 years with National Park 

Service. 

Karen Arey, Landscape Architect. No writing responsibilities; team focus was landscape architecture; 10 

years with National Park Service. 

Mary Frye, Historian, former Job Captain. Responsible for writing first draft of plan; 8 years with National 

Park Service. 

Paul Lederer, Landscape Architect, retired. 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

Audrey Calhoun, Superintendent 

Deborah Feldman, Park Planner 

Rock Creek Park 

Adrienne Applewhaite-Coleman, Superintendent 

Cindy Cox, Assistant Superintendent 

Bob Ford, Natural Resources Specialist 

Steven Strach, former Cultural Resources Specialist 

Julia Washburn, former chief of Cultural Resources Management and Visitor Services 

National Capital Parks–East 

Roy Ashley, Park Ranger 

John Hale, Superintendent 

Jackie Handley, Cultural Landscape Architect 

Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Assistant Superintendent 

Stephen Syphax, Chief of Resources Management 

Michael Wilderman, Resources Management Specialist, former Job Captain 

Washington Office 

Betty Janes, Outdoor Recreation Specialist/Project Manager 

Nat Kuykendall, Systems Analyst, former Job Captain 

National Capital Region 

John Parsons, Associate Regional Director for Stewardship and Partnership 

Gary Scott, Regional Historian 

Patrick Gregerson, Chief of Planning and Geographic Information Systems 

Publication Services, Denver Service Center 

Ruth Eitel, Visual Information Specialist 

Lou Layman, Writer-Editor 

Sandra Schuster, Writer-Editor 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests 

of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The 

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS D-10A September 2004 Printed on recycled paper. 

U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849