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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s letter dated April 13, 2005. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.