National Park Service: Managed Properties in the District of Columbia
Published: 2005-04-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In recent years, several challenges have emerged concerning future recreational opportunities in the nation's capital. These challenges include ensuring that an adequate supply of parkland and open space is available to meet the needs of an increasing resident population and the estimated 20 million annual visitors to the District of Columbia's cultural institutions, historic sites, parks, and open spaces. GAO identified (1) the universe of federal property in the District of Columbia (the District) managed by the National Park Service (NPS); (2) what recreational facilities, including those that are sports related, exist on these properties; (3) the condition of the properties with sports facilities and the sports facilities thereon; (4) new or expanded recreational uses discussed in NPS general management plans; and (5) the methods that could be used to convey management responsibility for NPS-managed properties to the District government. Commenting on the draft report, Interior stated that NPS is addressing properties in the greatest need of repair or rehabilitation in priority order. It also said that it did not have authority to enter into a lease that allows the erection of a structure on its property. However, GAO believes that existing authority allows the NPS director to approve such leases under certain circumstances.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: NPS manages 356 federal properties in the District, covering about 6,735 acres of land. Most of the properties are what NPS refers to as circles, squares, and triangles, and are less than 1 acre in size. The second largest total number of properties are parks and parkways, which represent about 93 percent of the total acreage for the 356 properties. NPS officials reported to GAO that 202 properties it manages in the District had various recreational facilities such as park benches, outdoor grills, and picnic tables or shelters. Of the 202 properties, 25 had 205 sports facilities, such as basketball and tennis courts and baseball and softball fields. Most of the properties with sports facilities were in good or fair condition, according to NPS deferred maintenance records, but information on the condition of individual sports facilities is limited. While we did not have criteria to determine the condition of sports facilities, we inspected each of the 205 sports facilities to identify obvious deficiencies, such as cracks in the surface area of tennis and basketball courts. Based on our observations, most of the facilities appeared to be well maintained, but we found some sports facilities had conditions that posed a potential safety risk. NPS has developed four general management plans--two finalized and two in draft. These plans identify some opportunities for new or expanded recreation, such as rehabilitating selected baseball and softball fields and basketball and tennis courts; creating a regional sports complex; and developing new hiking trails. For example, one of the plans calls for the creation of a new trail that connects Forts Dupont, Totten, Stevens, Reno, and others as part of the Fort Circle Parks system. Options available for transferring management responsibilities for NPS properties located in the District to the District city government include transfer of title, transfer of jurisdiction, memoranda of agreement or cooperative agreements, leases, and partnerships with public or private entities. Some of the options would require enacting new legislation while others may be exercised by NPS and the District under existing legislation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., (the District) and the surrounding  area is home to hundreds of cultural institutions, historic sites, parks, and  open spaces that provide cultural and recreational opportunities for about  560,000 residents and attract an estimated 20 million annual visitors,  generating revenues of about $10 billion for the local economy. Cultural  and recreational opportunities are offered at area sites that include  museums, memorials, monuments, forts, civil war battlefields, wilderness  preserves, botanical gardens, community parks, and the National Mall.  Recreational opportunities are also provided at numerous parks and  playgrounds that contain basketball and tennis courts, baseball and soccer  fields, and swimming pools, among other sport-related facilities. The  federal government owns much of the property in the Washington, D.C.  area where these sites reside, most of which is managed by the Department  of the Interior’s National Park Service (NPS). NPS identifies these  properties as parks, parkways, circles, squares, triangles, and hills, among  other terms. Consistent with its mission to promote and regulate the use of  NPS properties with the purpose of conserving their scenery and the  natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and preserving them for  future generations, NPS develops general management plans that detail  what current and future actions are needed for the properties it manages.
In recent years, several challenges have emerged concerning future  recreational opportunities in the nation’s capital. These challenges include  ensuring that an adequate supply of parkland and open space is available to  meet the needs of an increasing resident population, which according to  census reports will grow to about 655,000 by July 2025. Growing numbers  of residents coupled with continued high visitations, which is expected to  double to about 40 million by year 2050, can place increasing demands on  available recreational resources and potentially contribute to the  deterioration of those resources.
In legislative reports accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act,  2004, we were directed to conduct a study of NPS-managed property in the  District and specifically those properties that can be used for general and  sports-related recreation. In response to this direction, and as agreed with  your offices, this report discusses (1) the universe of federal property in the  District managed by NPS; (2) what recreational facilities, including those  that are sports-related, exist on these properties; (3) the condition of the  properties with sports facilities as well as the condition of each sports  facility on these properties; (4) new or expanded recreational uses of NPS- managed properties, as identified in NPS’ general management plans; and  (5) the methods NPS can use to convey management responsibility for its  properties to the District government.
To determine the universe of NPS-managed properties in the District, we  analyzed a database of properties managed by NPS and interviewed park  superintendents to ensure its completeness. To facilitate reporting, we  categorized these properties primarily based on NPS’ description of them.  To identify which properties have recreational facilities, including those  with sports facilities, we administered a data collection instrument to the  respective six superintendents in NPS’ National Capital Region who  manage these properties. To ascertain the condition of the properties with  sports facilities as well as the condition of each sports facility, we analyzed  NPS’ Facility Management Software System (FMSS) reports on the  condition of NPS-managed properties and associated maintenance needs  and discussed the reported condition with NPS officials. We also visited  205 sports facilities to identify any conditions that could pose a potential  safety hazard. We analyzed NPS general management plans to determine if  they identified any new or expanded recreational uses of the properties. To  identify methods for conveying management responsibility of NPS- managed properties to the District, we reviewed legislation, regulations,  legislative histories, and other documents as well as interviewed National  Capital Region officials and staff in the Department of the Interior’s Office  of the Solicitor.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I. We performed our work between February 2004 and March  2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: NPS manages the National Park System—over 80 million acres of land in  the nation—comprising a network of natural, historic, and cultural  treasures. NPS’ lands are contained in 388 units that include a diverse array  of national parks, military parks, national monuments, national historic  sites, recreation areas, and other designations. Of the 388 units in the  National Park System, 19 are located in the District. As the system’s federal  manager, NPS is charged with preserving and protecting these public lands  for future generations.
NPS’ National Capital Regional Office manages the 19 units in the District  as well as other units in surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia. The  National Capital Region has six management units, referred to by NPS as  superintendencies, that manages properties in the District. These  management units are (1) National Capital Parks-Central (Central), (2)  National Capital Parks-East (East), (3) Rock Creek Park (Rock Creek), (4)  White House-President’s Park (White House), (5) George Washington  Memorial Parkway (GW Parkway), and (6) Chesapeake & Ohio Canal  National Historic Park (C&O Canal)—each with a superintendent/director  who is responsible for managing properties within his/her jurisdiction.  Figure 1 depicts examples of NPS-managed properties in the District, and  figure 2 depicts the geographic areas covered by the National Capital  Region management units.
For the last several decades, GAO, the Department of the Interior’s  Inspector General, and Interior itself has reported that NPS did not have an  accurate inventory of existing assets, or a reliable estimate of deferred  maintenance costs for these assets. In an effort to more effectively manage  its assets NPS has developed a new asset management process to enable  the agency to have a reliable inventory of its assets and process for  reporting on the condition of those assets. The cornerstone of the new  asset management process is the Facility Management Software System  (FMSS) that allows park, regional office, or NPS headquarters managers to  track when, what, and how much maintenance and related costs has been  directed at each specific asset. When fully developed and implemented, the  new system will, for the first time, enable the agency to have a (1) reliable  inventory of its assets, (2) process for reporting on the condition of the  assets in its inventory, and (3) consistent, system-wide methodology for  estimating the deferred maintenance costs for its assets. Depending on the  extent of deferred maintenance required, NPS ranks the assets in FMSS as  being in good, fair, poor, or serious condition. Essentially, the lower the  estimated deferred maintenance costs, the better the condition of the  assets, including properties.
In addition, NPS develops general management plans for its units for the  purpose of making proactive decisions that address future opportunities at  NPS properties, including planning for visitor use, managing the natural  and cultural resources on properties, and developing properties.  Accordingly, these plans may identify new or expanded recreational  opportunities to enhance visitors’ experience. NPS has developed four  general management plans—two final and two draft—that encompass  some of the properties it manages in the District. However, if it is  determined that federal ownership or management of the assets would be  better served elsewhere, either the Congress or NPS can take the necessary  action, for example, by transferring title or jurisdiction, or through  memoranda of agreement, cooperative agreements, or leases.
section_title: NPS Manages 356 Properties in the District
paragraphs: NPS manages 356 federally owned properties in the District covering about  6,735 acres. These properties vary by type and size. Properties in the  circles, squares, and triangles category represent the greatest number of  NPS-managed properties. Properties in the parks and parkways category  comprise the greatest number of the total acres, about 93 percent, managed  by NPS. The majority of all NPS-managed properties in the District,  however, are less than 1 acre. Appendix II provides additional descriptive  information on the 356 NPS-managed properties in the District.
subsections: section_title: NPS Manages a Diverse Array of Properties in the District
paragraphs: NPS manages a diverse array of properties in the District that vary by types  and include properties, such as parks, parkways, and triangles. The  properties also vary in size, ranging from less than 1 acre to about 1,750  acres. NPS does not classify the properties it manages by categories, nor  does it use a standard definition for the types of properties it manages.  Nevertheless, NPS typically uses terms that are descriptive of the  properties. For example, NPS refers to a triangular-shaped property as a  “triangle” and a circular-shaped property as a “circle.” For ease in reporting,  we grouped NPS-managed properties into the following four categories: (1)  park and parkways; (2) circles, squares, and triangles; (3) Mall/Washington  Monument and grounds; and (4) other. Table 1 shows the number of  properties in the four categories.
section_title: The Majority of NPS- Managed Properties Are in the Circles, Squares, and Triangles Category
paragraphs: The majority of the 356 NPS-managed properties in the District are in the  circles, squares, and triangles category, representing about 60 percent of  the total properties that NPS manages in the District. Circles, squares, and  triangles range in size from 0.01 acres to about 7 acres, with an average size  of 0.3 acres. Triangles represent the largest number of properties (178 of  the 200 properties) in this category and are managed by the Central, East,  and Rock Creek management units. The remaining properties consist of 15  circles and 7 squares. A recent National Capital Planning Commission  report refers to the circles, squares, and triangles as designed landscape  parks that include fountains, monuments, memorials, and other civic art  features. Examples include Dupont Circle, Thomas Circle, Logan Circle,  Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Bolivar Triangle. Figure 3 shows  the percent of NPS-managed properties by category. Figure 4 shows the  number of properties by component of the circles, squares, and triangles  category. Appendix III provides additional information on properties in the  circles, squares, and triangles category.
section_title: The Majority of the Acreage of NPS-Managed Property Is in the Parks and Parkways Category
paragraphs: There are 95 properties in the parks and parkways category, which contain  about 6,246, or 93 percent, of the total acres of NPS-managed property in  the District. Figure 5 shows the percentage of the NPS-managed property  acres, by category.
Three properties—Rock Creek Park, Piney Branch Parkway, and Anacostia  Park—contain about 50 percent of the acres associated with properties in  this category. The Central, East, and Rock Creek management units  manage about 99 percent of the properties and 93 percent of the total  acreage in the parks and parkways category. Figure 6 shows the acreage of  properties in the parks and parkways category managed by the National  Capital Region management units.
section_title: Most NPS-Managed Properties Are Less Than 1 Acre in Size
paragraphs: The majority of the NPS-managed properties are less than 1 acre in size. Of  the 356 properties in the District, 242, or about 68 percent, are less than 1  acre in size. Of these, 108 properties are less than one-tenth of an acre.  Most of the properties less than 1 acre are managed by the Central and East  management units. The most common types of properties less than 1 acre  are triangles, center parking, and curb parking. Figure 7 shows the  percentage and number of NPS-managed properties by size.
section_title: NPS-Managed Properties Contain Various Recreational Facilities, Including Sports Facilities
paragraphs: The majority of NPS-managed properties in the District have some type of  recreational facilities, including sports facilities. To identify what  recreational facilities are available on the 356 NPS-managed properties in  the District, we asked NPS officials to identify the (1) types of recreational  facilities on the properties, such as park benches, outdoor grills,  playgrounds, and picnic tables, or shelters and (2) sports-related facilities,  such as basketball and tennis courts and baseball and softball fields. NPS  officials reported that 202 properties had some type of recreational facility,  including 25 properties that had 205 sports facilities. The remaining 154 (of  the 356) properties did not have either of the above type facilities.  Regardless of whether they have facilities, NPS officials believe that the  properties they manage provide some form of recreation. Appendix IV  provides information on the properties without either type of recreation  facilities.
subsections: section_title: NPS-Managed Properties Provide a Variety of Recreational Facilities
paragraphs: About 60 percent of the NPS-managed properties in the District have some  type of recreational facility, including sports facilities. Of the 356  properties, 22 had both sports facilities and other types of recreational  facilities, 177 had recreational facilities, exclusive of sports facilities, and 3  had sports facilities only. Table 2 shows the number of properties with the  specific type of recreational facilities, exclusive of sports facilities.
section_title: There Are 205 Sports- Related Facilities on 25 NPS-Managed Properties in the District
paragraphs: Twenty-five of the 356 properties have a total of 205 sports facilities, such  as tennis courts or softball and baseball fields. About 92 percent of the  sports facilities are located on properties in the parks and parkways  category, about 6 percent in the Mall/Washington Monument and grounds  category, and about 1 percent each in the circles, squares, and triangles and  other categories. Figure 8 shows by category, the number of properties  containing sports facilities and the total number of sports facilities on those  properties.
As table 3 shows, 109, or 53 percent, of the 205 sports facilities are tennis  and racquetball courts and multiple-use fields. Multiple-use fields are  generally areas that can be used to play various sports, such as soccer,  football, softball, and baseball. Tennis and racquetball courts total 73, or 36  percent, of the sports facilities, whereas multiple-use fields total 36, or 18  percent. The tennis and racquetball courts are located at 7 different NPS- managed properties while the multiple-use fields are found at 14 different  properties. Most of the sports facilities are managed by NPS’ Central, East,  and Rock Creek management units. Together these management units  managed approximately 98 percent of the total sport facilities. Appendix V  provides additional information on properties with sports facilities.
section_title: NPS Rated Most Properties or Major Sections of Properties with Sports Facilities in Good or Fair Condition
paragraphs: According to NPS assessments and information reported in its FMSS  database, most NPS-managed properties with sports facilities are in good  or fair condition. Information on the condition of each sports facility is  generally not identifiable in FMSS and NPS does not have clear criteria to  systematically assess sports facility condition. However, during visual  inspections, while most properties seem to be well maintained, we  identified some sports facilities with deficiencies that pose a potential  safety hazard.
subsections: section_title: Most Properties or Major Sections of Properties with Sports Facilities Are in Good or Fair Condition
paragraphs: We asked NPS to provide us with condition assessments recorded in FMSS  for each of the 25 properties with sports facilities. FMSS did not provide an  assessment of one property’s condition due to security issues.  Furthermore, some properties were grouped together into one assessment  and other properties received more than one assessment. As a result, NPS  provided 22 assessments covering the remaining 24 properties. Figure 9  shows the number of assessments and condition for properties with sports  facilities. Appendix VI provides additional information on the condition  assessments of properties with sports facilities.
section_title: Information on the Condition of Individual Sports Facilities Is Limited
paragraphs: We reviewed the documentation supporting the deferred maintenance  associated with each of the 24 properties for which we were provided  assessments to ascertain if it provided data that could be used to identify  the condition of each sports facility. However, this information was of  limited use in identifying sports facilities’ conditions. For example, the  information, for the most part, discussed such deferred maintenance as  repairing or refurbishing landscapes and structures; replacing pavement,  concrete curbing, picnic tables, and seawalls; and repainting fences, posts,  and benches. This information was not descriptive enough to determine  whether the maintenance pertained to the sports facilities or other parts of  the property. However, NPS collectively assessed the athletic fields at West  Potomac Park, which comprise 8 multiple-use fields, 11 volleyball courts,  and 13 baseball fields, to be in poor condition. According to NPS officials,  the poor condition assigned to the athletic field’s was due primarily to the  deferred maintenance needed for the park’s volleyball courts and multiple- use fields, and not the baseball fields, which are in good condition. NPS  identified about $1 million in deferred maintenance costs for refurbishing  the volleyball courts, reseeding and sodding the fields, pruning trees,  painting fencing, repairing backstops, replacing sidewalk pavement, and  upgrading the sewage system. Even in this case, the condition of each  sports facility could not be determined, since the assessment was done for  the collective group of athletic fields.
In reviewing each property’s deferred maintenance documentation, we also  determined that the condition of the property or section of property may  not be indicative of the condition of any sports facility on the property. For  example, while NPS assessed the Fort Reno Park property as being in good  condition, 84 percent of the total deferred maintenance needs for this  property were directly related to refurbishing the multiple-use athletic  fields thereon. Because such a large percentage of the deferred  maintenance costs involve refurbishing the athletic fields, it is likely that  the condition of the fields is worse than what the assessment showed for  the property overall.
It should also be noted that NPS assessments do not include determining  the condition of structures, such as boat ramps, horse stables, ice and  roller skating rinks, and roadways because criteria to assess these  structures have not been finalized for use by the park units. As previously  identified in table 3, several of the sports facilities on the NPS-managed  properties have these structures, again supporting the fact that limited  information is available on the condition of sports facilities.
section_title: Some Sports Facilities Posed Potential Safety Hazards
paragraphs: We did not have criteria to judge the condition of the sports facilities.  However, since the NPS’ information was of limited value in determining  their condition, we visually inspected each of the 205 sports facilities to  look for obvious deficiencies, such as cracks in the surface of tennis and  basketball courts, fallen or missing basketball posts and baskets, and  broken backstops around baseball/softball fields. We did note some of  these deficiencies, but for the most part, the facilities did not have these  conditions and appeared to be well maintained. Figure 10 shows an  example of properties that appear to be well maintained. In contrast, figure  11 shows an example of a facility with a cracked surface area.
In addition, we identified some conditions at some sports facilities,  primarily in Anacostia Park, that posed potential safety hazards to users.  See figures 12 through 17 for some examples of these safety hazards.
section_title: NPS General Management Plans Identify Opportunities for Some Expanded Recreational Uses of NPS-Managed Properties in the District
paragraphs: Current NPS general management plans identify opportunities for some  expanded recreational uses, such as improving visitor experience by  increasing the number and scope of exhibits; creating a regional sports  complex; rehabilitating selected baseball/softball fields and basketball and  tennis courts; and creating new hiking trails. NPS has developed four  general management plans—two final and two drafts—that encompass 37  of the 356 properties and 4,196 of the 6,735 acres it manages in the District.  Appendix VII shows additional information on the properties covered by  the four general management plans.
The two finalized general management plans are for properties that  encompass the Fort Circle Parks and the Mary McLeod Bethune Council  House National Historic Site. The following are the new or expanded  recreational opportunities identified in the final plans:  Fort Circle Parks: The primary new recreational opportunity is the creation  of a new walking trail that connects most of the forts encompassing the  Fort Circle Parks system. These include Forts Dupont, Totten, Stevens,  Stanton, Davis, and Reno. The plan also calls for developing a small year- round visitor contact facility near Fort Stevens—where the only battle of  the Civil War was fought in the District—to provide a focal point for the  Fort Circle Parks system. The facility will offer orientation and  interpretation and serve as the start of a driving tour of the forts. In terms  of improving existing facilities, the plan calls for rehabilitating selected  baseball/softball fields, basketball and tennis courts, picnic areas, and  other facilities. In addition, the activity center at Fort Dupont would be  developed into an education center to focus on school and community  groups offering cultural, historical, natural, and environmental  programming.
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site: The Mary  McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site’s plan focuses solely  on developing interpretive exhibits on the house and the life of Mary  McLeod Bethune, who founded the National Council of Negro Women.
The two draft plans are for properties in (1) Rock Creek Park and the Rock  Creek and Potomac Parkways and (2) Anacostia Park. The following are  the new or expanded recreational opportunities identified in the final plans  and the plan’s preferred alternative, if so designated: Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway: The 2003  draft Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway’s plan  considers closing off the upper part of Beach Drive—a major thoroughfare  through the park—during nonrush hours to make it available for  nonmotorized recreational uses such as biking, rollerblading, jogging, and  walking. The plan also proposes upgrades of existing foot and bridal trails  to enhance the visitor’s experience while biking, jogging, walking, or  horseback riding through designated areas of the park. NPS estimates that  this plan will be finalized in the spring of 2005.
Anacostia Park: The Anacostia Park plan contains two alternatives, neither  of which was identified as the preferred alternative. The first alternative  focuses on enhancement and expansion of current sports facilities, with an  emphasis on neighborhood recreation. This alternative proposes a small  area at Poplar Point to be designated as a grand waterfront park area. The  second alternative proposes enhancements to current sports facilities and  natural resources and emphasizes large-scale sports facilities to support  regional sporting events. Both alternatives propose access to and  additional boating facilities on the Anacostia waterfront. NPS hopes to  release this plan to the public for comment in the summer of 2005.
section_title: Options Available for NPS Property To Be Used or Managed by the District for Recreational Purposes
paragraphs: There are a number of ways for NPS property to be made available to the  District for recreational purposes, including through a transfer of title,  transfer of jurisdiction, memoranda of agreement or cooperative  agreements, partnerships of public and private entities, and leases. As  discussed below, some of these options may be implemented by NPS and  the District under existing legislation; others would require enactment of  new legislation.
subsections: section_title: Transfer of Title
paragraphs: In general, title to property allows the owner to possess, control, and assert  all rights over that property.
Legislation could be enacted, transferring title or requiring such transfer of  NPS property to the District. For example, at least two federal laws  specifically direct the Department of the Interior to transfer title to land,  under NPS jurisdiction, from the federal government to the District. Public  Law No. 99-581, enacted in 1986, directed the Secretary of the Interior to  convey title to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium building to the  District. Also, in accordance with the law, the underlying land and  associated parking facilities were leased to the District government. The  National Children’s Island Act of 1995 directed the Secretary of the Interior  to transfer title to portions of two islands in Anacostia Park (Heritage  Island and the southern portion of Kingman Island) to the District. The  purpose was to facilitate the construction, development, and operation of  National Children’s Island, envisioned as a cultural, educational, and  family-oriented park.
section_title: Transfer of Jurisdiction
paragraphs: Under a transfer of jurisdiction between the federal government and the  District, the transferor retains ownership of the property while the  transferee may be given authority to administer and maintain (manage) the  property.
The federal government has general statutory authority to transfer  jurisdiction over park properties that it owns in the District to the District  government. Prior to enactment of this authority in 1932, congressional  action was required for each transfer between the federal government and  the District. According to a report of the House Committee on Public  Buildings and Grounds, the purpose of the law was to obviate the need for  the Congress to approve each exchange between the federal government  and the District, thereby lessening the work of the Congress and resulting  in a savings of public funds.
Before NPS transfers jurisdiction over a District property, the transfer must  be recommended by the National Capital Planning Commission  (Commission)—the central federal planning agency for the federal  government in the National Capital. The Commission may examine a  number of factors in determining whether to recommend a transfer— including whether the proposal is generally reasonable and justified,  consistent with the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan, and/or raises any  environmental, historical preservation, or other impact concerns. The  Commission may also examine public comments prior to its final decision,  which may result in approval, approval with stipulations, or disapproval.
After a transfer is approved and completed, District authorities are  required to report the transfer and associated agreements to the  Congress. Official city maps may be changed and records updated after an  official exchange of letters of transfer and acceptance between the  parties.
Some examples of jurisdictional transfers from the federal government to  the District government include properties used or to be used for the  following:  correctional facilities,   performing arts.
section_title: Memoranda of Agreement/Cooperative Agreements
paragraphs: Memoranda of agreement or cooperative agreements are legal instruments  that establish a relationship between a federal agency and a state or local  government, or other recipient. They are used to transfer a thing of value in  carrying out a public purpose of support or stimulation. Substantial  involvement is expected between the parties.
A 1949 agreement between NPS and the District of Columbia Recreation  Board implements authority provided in Public Law No. 77-534 (1942) for  making federal lands and recreational facilities located in the District,  including those of NPS, available to the District of Columbia Recreation  Board to conduct its recreation programs. The agreement lists a number  of parks or park areas that may be used by the District of Columbia  Recreation Board to carry out various recreation activities, through  concession contracts or otherwise, including golf courses in Anacostia  Park and Rock Creek Park, tennis courts in East Potomac Park and Rock  Creek Park, and boating at West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and  Columbia Island.
NPS is authorized by several statutes to enter into cooperative agreements  with the District for management of federal parks. For example, where a  federal park is located adjacent to or near a state or local park, and  cooperative management would be more efficient, NPS may enter into a  cooperative agreement with the state or local government agency in order  to cooperatively manage the parks and provide or acquire goods and  services. NPS would continue to retain administrative responsibilities  over the park, as the law prohibits the transfer of these responsibilities.  Another provision of law authorizes NPS to enter into cooperative  agreements with and transfer appropriated funds to state and local  governments, among other entities, for the public purpose of carrying out  NPS programs.
section_title: Leases
paragraphs: A lease is a written contract through which use and possession of property  is granted to a person for a specified period of time.
NPS has authority to lease certain federally owned or administered  property located within the boundaries of park areas. For example, NPS  issued a lease to the Friends of Fort Dupont to manage an ice rink at Fort  Dupont Park, a federally owned park located in the District. Regulations  implementing NPS leasing authority are set out at 36 C.F.R. part 18. The  regulations describe, among other things, the determinations NPS must  make before leasing property, procedures for awarding leases, and required  lease terms and conditions. Unless otherwise authorized by law, a lease  may not authorize the lessee to engage in activities that must be authorized  through a concession contract, commercial use authorization, or similar  instrument. Proposed lease activities are subject to authorization under a  concession contract or commercial use authorization if the director of NPS  determines, in accordance with regulations and guidance, that the  proposed activities meet applicable requirements for issuance of such  instruments.
section_title: Partnership
paragraphs: A partnership is usually defined as a type of cooperative business  relationship; however, cooperative efforts in a public project may also be  referred to as a partnership and can be established through legislation. For  example, in an effort to coordinate government and private sector activities  in the development and implementation of an integrated resource  management plan for certain Boston Harbor islands, Congress established  the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, administered by a  partnership including representatives from NPS, the U.S. Coast Guard,  state and local government offices, and various private sector  organizations. The law established the framework for administration of  the area, parameters for operation of and membership in the partnership,  minimum requirements for the management plan to be submitted to  Interior, and establishment of an advisory council to represent interested  groups and make recommendations to the partnership. Similarly, NPS  properties in the District may be identified with recreational potential that  could be maximized through such partnerships.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Response
paragraphs: We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for  review and comment. The department provided written comments that are  included in appendix VIII. The department provided us with some  comments with technical clarifications, which we have incorporated as  appropriate. In addressing the condition of properties, the department  stated that NPS is diligently implementing an asset management plan that  addresses deficiencies and that needed repair and rehabilitation of  properties are evaluated and prioritized against the needs of the entire  national park system. Projects of greatest need are undertaken in priority  order, focusing on critical health and safety and resource protection issues.  In addition, the department said that NPS does not have the authority to  enter into a lease that allows erection of a structure on such property.  While we agree that the agency’s authority is limited, NPS regulations  authorize a lease to include a provision allowing for the construction of  minor additions, buildings, and other structures as long as it is (1)  necessary for the support of authorized lease activities, (2) otherwise  consistent with the protection and purposes of the park area, and (3)  approved by the director.
We will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees;  the Secretary of the Interior; and other interested parties. We will also  make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me or Roy Judy at (202)  512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our study included all federally owned properties that were managed by  the National Park Service (NPS) in Washington, D.C., (the District). These  properties are under the jurisdiction of NPS’ National Capital Region.
To determine the universe of properties managed by NPS in the District, we  obtained an electronic file from the National Capital Region that contained  all of the properties (reservations) that it manages. Working with NPS  officials, we excluded properties outside of the District. This resulted in  identifying a universe of 356 properties. To facilitate our analysis and  reporting, we grouped the NPS-managed properties into four categories,  primarily based on their description as provided on NPS’ Reservation List.  (NPS does not have a list of the types of properties under its jurisdiction,  nor does it have standard definitions for the properties it manages.) The  four categories we used were park and parkways; circles, squares, and  triangles; Mall/Washington Monument and grounds; and other. The park  and parkways category consists of properties described on NPS’  Reservation List as park, parkway, or combination thereof. Also in this  category are several forts and batteries, which are components of Fort  Circle Parks. Similarly, the circles, squares, and triangles category includes  properties referred to on the Reservation List as physical structures, i.e.,  circles, squares, or triangles. The Mall and Washington Monument and  grounds contain properties identified on the Reservation List as being  connected with the Mall, the Washington Monument, or its grounds. Finally,  the “other” category consists of various properties described on the  Reservation List, as curb/center parking, cemeteries, islands, hills,  historical sites, plazas, memorials, annexes, and fountains. We also  included in this category Ford’s Theatre and the Mary McLeod Bethune  Council House. Appendix II provides a complete listing of the NPS- managed properties in the District and their respective categories.
To identify the recreational and sports-related facilities on NPS-managed  properties, we developed a data collection instrument (DCI) that we  distributed to NPS National Capital Region officials. The DCI contained  questions about the existence of recreation facilities, including the number  of sports-related facilities; plans for future facilities; and other information  about each of the NPS-managed properties. To ensure that data gathered  from the DCI were valid and reliable, we performed a number of steps.  First, we conducted pretests with National Capital Region officials in two  of its management units and revised the DCI in accordance with these  pretest results. We next asked the region’s six management units  (superintendencies or directors) that have management responsibility for  their respective properties to complete one DCI for each of the 356  properties under their respective jurisdiction. We received completed DCIs  for 100 percent of the properties. We then reviewed the completed DCIs for  obvious errors, such as missing responses to questions and inconsistencies  in the answers provided. We also compared the responses with the  knowledge we gained from visiting or researching the properties. In  addition, we conducted follow-up interviews with region officials to clarify  or correct any errors. The data from the hard copy DCIs were key-punched  into an electronic data file and checked for accuracy. We used this data file  for our analysis. We performed all analysis presented in this report through  programming in statistical software, and both the programming and the  results were checked for accuracy. We identified various types of  recreational facilities, including sports facilities, on the properties. To  verify the accuracy of the NPS-reported data, we visited each of the  properties that NPS identified as having sports facilities or a combination  of sports facilities and other facilities. During these visits, we determined if  the property contained the facilities reported to us in the DCI. For the most  part, we found that the reported number of facilities on these 25 properties  was comparable. However, we found four tennis courts that had not been  reported to us—one on a property in East Potomac Park and three in Rock  Creek Park. NPS officials acknowledged that they had made a mistake in  not reporting these facilities on the DCI. Accordingly, we revised our  database to include these four facilities.
To determine the condition of the properties with sports facilities as well as  the condition of the sports facilities themselves, we relied on information  in NPS’ Facility Management Software System (FMSS) and interviews with  NPS officials. FMSS is a system that identifies the condition of assets,  including properties, based on the asset’s deferred maintenance costs  relative to its replacement value. Thus, the higher the deferred  maintenance costs, the worse the condition of the asset. Based on NPS  criteria, the condition of properties are assessed as good, fair, poor, or  serious. We asked NPS to provide FMSS data for each of the 25 properties  with sports facilities. NPS provided assessments on the condition of 24 of  the 25 properties. It did not provide information on one property due to  security issues. We then collected the records in support of the estimated  deferred maintenance costs for each of the 24 properties to ascertain if the  records contained specific information relative to the condition of the  sports facilities on the properties. On the basis of our review, we  determined that the maintenance records did not provide sufficient detail  to determine the condition of the sports facilities. Since FMSS did not  provide sufficient information to determine the condition of the sports  facilities, we inspected these facilities to identify any deficiencies, such as  cracks in the surface of tennis and basketball courts. For the most part,  these facilities appeared to be well maintained. However, we did find some  facilities that required maintenance to prevent potential safety hazards.
To determine any new or expanded recreational use proposed for NPS- managed properties in general management plans, we asked NPS to  identify the plans it had developed for properties that it manages in the  District. We were provided final general management plans for Mary  McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site, the Fort Circle  Parks and draft management plans for (1) Rock Creek Park and the Rock  Creek Park and Potomac Parkway and (2) Anacostia Park. We reviewed  each of these plans to ascertain the specifics regarding new or expanded  recreational uses for the properties. We also spoke with NPS officials to  identify the properties covered under each plan and to obtain information  regarding any updates to these plans and their respective completion dates.  We were also provided a general plan for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal  National Historical Park. However, this plan was developed in 1976 and  prior to the guidance for what is to be included in a general management  plan. Further, it was outdated per NPS’ guidance that general management  plans should not exceed 15 years. Thus, we did not include this plan in our  analysis.
Finally, to identify methods for conveying management responsibility of  NPS-managed properties to the District, we reviewed legislation,  regulations, legislative histories, and other documents in addition to  interviewing NPS officials in the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s  Office and NPS’ National Capital Region.
section_title: Information on the 356 NPS-Managed Properties in the District
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the 356 NPS-managed properties in  the District.  Table 4 shows the properties by National Capital Region  management unit, location description, and property size in acres.
section_title: Information on the Properties in the Circles, Squares, and Triangles Category
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the 200 NPS-managed properties in  the District that are in the circles, squares, and triangles category. Table 5  shows, by National Capital Region management unit, the properties by  property number, location description, category type, and size (in acres)  associated with each property.
section_title: Information on the 154 NPS-Managed Properties That Did Not Contain Identified Recreational Facilities
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the 154 NPS-managed properties in  the District that do not contain any recreational facilities, including sports  facilities. In summary, 116 (75 percent) of these properties were in the  circles, squares, and triangles category, but accounted for only about 16 (4  percent) of the 450 total acres. Sixteen of the 154 properties were in the  park and parkways category and accounted for 398 (88 percent) of the total  acres. The remaining 22 properties were in the “other” category and  accounted for 36 of the total acres. Table 6 shows, by National Capital  Region management unit, property number, location description, type of  property, and size (in acres) associated with each property.
section_title: Information on NPS-Managed Properties with Sports Facilities
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the 25 NPS-managed properties in  the District that contain the sports facilities identified in table 3 of this  report. Table 7 shows the properties with sports facilities by National  Capital Region management unit, location description, property size (in  acres), and the number and types of sports facilities on each property.
section_title: Information on the Condition of Properties with Sports Facilities
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the condition of properties with  sports facilities. Each year NPS assesses the condition of the grounds,  landscapes, and associated features of federal properties it manages. NPS  conducts these condition assessments on a location basis, which may  encompass several properties. NPS provided assessments covering 24 of  the 25 properties with sports facilities. An assessment was not provided for  one property due to security reasons.  Table 8 provides information on the  results of these assessments.
section_title: Information on Properties Covered in General Management Plans
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the properties covered in general  management plans.  Table 9 shows the property number, size (in acres),  and location associated with properties covered in the Anacostia, Fort  Circle Parks, Mary McLeod Bethune, and Rock Creek Park and the Rock  Creek and Potomac Parkway general management plans.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s  letter dated April 13, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. Fort Circle Parks, Rock Creek Park, Piney Branch Parkway, and  Anacostia Park are already included in the “park and parkways”  category. A more detailed description concerning the composition of  the park and parkways category can be found in appendix I. 2. When formatted, the captions track with their perspective photos. 3. We removed the reference to boat rentals and included information that  identifies the specific property so that it could be more readily  identified. 4. We clarified the caption at the bottom of the photos to explain that the  recreational facilities have not been in use since the property has been  closed to the public.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Diana Cheng, John Delicath, Doreen  Feldman, John Johnson, Julian Klazkin, Roselyn McCarthy, and Peter  Oswald made key contributions to this report.  Mark Braza, Kim Raheb, and  Jena Sinkfield made important methodological and graphic contributions  to the report.