THE CIVIL WAR DEFENSES OF
WASHINGTON/FORT CIRCLE PARKS
AN INTERIM ASSESSMENT – SUMMER 2007
By
B. F. Cooling, Loretta Neumann and Walton Owen
(July 2007)
Contents
Part I: The Past – The Legacy of Vision
The Historical Defenses of Washington – the Fundamental Meaning
Civil War Defenses – A Wartime Field Fortification System
Fort Sites Lead to Parks – Generations Respond to Opportunity
Information and Public Concerns
Results – Accomplishments
Part II: The Present – Gaining Traction
Implementation through Consultation and Discussion – Efforts Begin
Tackling the Outstanding Issues – To Date
Results – Accomplishments and Unaddressed Misses
Part III: The Future – Sustaining Rejuvenation
Turning Promise into Results – The Short-term Agenda
The Way Forward through Innovative Thinking and Transformational Action
Part IV: The Sesquicentennial Challenge Agenda – An Agenda of Change
Fully Resource Fort Circle Parks/Defenses of Washington – All Jurisdictions
Create a National Heritage Area for Washington’s Defenses – All Jurisdictions
Prioritize the System’s Flagship – Fort Stevens – National Park Service
Systematize Cultural, Natural, Recreational Themes – All Jurisdictions
Promote Research – Historical, Archaeological, Natural – All Jurisdictions
Achieve Conceptual Interpretive Unity – All Jurisdictions
Ensure Site Safety – All Jurisdictions
Increase Access – Public and Non-Motorized Transportation – All Jurisdictions
Improve Site Protection – From Vandalism, Overuse, Erosion – All Jurisdictions
Defend Sites – From Incompatible Uses and Development – All Jurisdictions
Enhance the Metrics of Interpretation/Education – All Jurisdictions
Develop Management Metrics – Administrative Reorganization - – National Park Service
Accelerate Educational and Transformational Opportunities – All Jurisdictions
Effect Preservation Relative Walter Reed’s BRAC - National Park Service et. al
Promote Economic Opportunity and Community Cohesion via Fort Circle Parks – Federal, City, Private Entrepreneurship
PART ONE:
PAST - THE LEGACY OF VISION
The Historical Defenses of Washington
Protection and defense of the center of governance is as old as civilization. The defense of nation-state capitals continues to form part of national security (currently enunciated by the rubric of homeland security/homeland defense). Americans learned the lesson of this basic principle to their regret during the Early National period when Great Britain captured and burned key government buildings of the youthful capital of Washington, D.C. in 1814. The result initially was a stone and masonry river edifice, Fort Washington that today might be said to anchor National Park Service sites relating to the defense of the city and capital.
A half-century after the British visit, military officials designed and completed the most systematic fortification of any city in North America, designed to defend the Civil War capital of the Union. From that project emerged the so-called “Defenses of Washington,” immortalized by its “father,” Major (later Major General John Gross Barnard of the Army engineers. Over the next century and one-half, the United States military continued to develop and prefect fortifications and defense mechanisms for the capital. In conformity with the changing nature of warfare, they evolved from river defense (Fort Washington, Fort Foote and Virginia shore fortifications mounting sophisticated ordnance) to air defense (missile batteries, interceptor aircraft squadrons) and anti-ballistic missile defense actually distant from the capital region. Thus, the concept and implementation of defending Washington embraces virtually all the periods of national history, and a full spectrum of military technology and national defense.
Civil War Defenses
Focus on the Civil War defenses of Washington still commands our attention today. The elaborate system of field fortifications – 68 enclosed forts, 93 unarmed gun batteries, with 807 cannons and 98 mortars in place, 20 plus miles of linking infantry entrenchments plus infrastructure that included 30 miles of military roads, camps, logistical facilities as well as the wholesale deforestation and confiscation of private property in the interest of national defense (termed wartime necessity) was a marvel in its time. Moreover, it involved the wholesale deforestation of the landscape and confiscation of private property in the interest of wartime “military necessity.”
From a historical, preservationist, recreational and naturalist perspective, these engineering works form the basis and rationale for Fort Circle Parks of the National Park Service and similar associated park sites administered by local jurisdictions in Virginia and Maryland. Barnard’s brainchild, he initiated analysis of these Civil War forts as a War Department report explaining in engineering by text and diagram the state of the Defenses of Washington as of 1863. His report was published in 1871 as a Corps of Engineer professional paper. Barnard’s work began the practice of periodically surveying, studying, interpreting and publicizing Washington’s forts.
Forts Lead to Parks
Although post-Civil War concern for Washington’s military defense went forward in War Department (if not Navy Department) circles, interest shifted as the city grew in importance and size. The nation herself fleshed out its boundaries, economic and political system as well as its role in world affairs. Naval deterrence and coastal defense shifted outward from the banks of the Potomac.
At the same time, Washington’s “suburbs” swept past the land embraced by the fortifications as well as the Civil War battle site of Fort Stevens. There in the northwest quadrant of the city on the Seventh Street road (renamed Georgia Avenue), President Abraham Lincoln witnessed the only Civil War combat inside the District of Columbia on July 11 and 12, 1864 and came under enemy fire for reputedly the only recorded instance of a sitting American president doing so while in office. In addition, the Army established Walter Reed Army Hospital (later Medical Center) on a portion of that battlefield, preserving at least the basic lay of the land. Civil War veterans’ and citizens’ concerns saved a portion of Fort Stevens where the Civilian Conservation Corps reconstructed the main parapet and magazine in 1937. Battleground National Cemetery, dedicated by President Lincoln personally after the Battle of Fort Stevens contains 41 deceased Union soldiers from that battle. Both the fort and the cemetery later came under National Park Service administration.
On another front, as early as the 1890s, tourism and public interest in Washington sites caused the Engineering Platoon of the Engineer Corps of the District of Columbia National Guard to publish a humble Guide to and Maps of the National Capital and Vicinity Including the Fortifications. It suggested as much about appreciation of the changing nature of the District’s natural and cultural landscape as it did the disintegrating yet surviving and visitable Civil War defenses of Washington.
The most important and specific planning efforts began with the 1902 McMillan Commission Report to Congress which, among other things, reflected concern about urban parks and open space as attributes of the expanding Federal City. This Senate commission proposed connecting the Civil War circle of forts and earthworks by a modern roadway through a landscaped corridor providing leisurely access to each fort site. As proposed, the parkway would have girdled the city limits.
The fascinating story of the implementation of the McMillan Commission Report by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission forms part of the history of the Defenses of Washington/Fort Circle Parks. They amasses huge swaths of land by creatively using the authorities under the Capper-Cramton Act of May 29, 1930, closing some streets, and obtaining donations of private land. Congress grew weary of the growing costs, however, and stopped the project before it reached completion. The War Department properties were transferred to the National Park Service in 1933. Acquisition of Fort Marcy provided the final block in that agency’s forts/parks program decades later.
Beyond NPS jurisdiction, Montgomery County, Maryland acquired its only fortification, Battery Bailey in 1951. The City of Alexandria purchased and developed the Fort Ward Museum and Park in 1961. Arlington County acquired remnants at Fort Scott, Fort Ethan Allen and in 1995, Fort C. F. Smith. Fairfax County completed the true “fort circle” of parks at Fort Willard in the Belle Haven section of Alexandria. Isolated fragments of earthworks remain in private possession, for example Battery Jamison’s parapet in Fort Lincoln Cemetery, Prince George’s County, Maryland and Fort Richardson owned by the Army-Navy Country Club, Arlington, Virginia.
Modern preservation of sites in the Civil War Defenses of Washington system has led to customary spate of modern studies concerning management, assessment and stewardship (custodianship) under various jurisdictional administrations. The National Park Service provides a model for such studies with its 1968 Fort Circle Parks Master Plan begun in 1965. The report, published in 1968 stated: “… what would best serve the city and the resources would be to retain the concept of the McMillan Commission to ‘foster the memorialization aspects of the old fort sites into a continuous ribbon of park land in terms of present-day needs and conditions, without a road.’”
In fact, by the 1960s, changed urban conditions, right-of-way limitations and traffic increases on the cross streets intersecting any McMillan-envision parkway (of the Suitland Parkway ilk) proved infeasible. As Washington suburbs moved through and beyond District of Columbia boundaries, unprotected fort remnants from Fort Sumner and Battery Alexander in Maryland (Forts Simmons and Mansfield long gone) and most of the Arlington-Alexandria lines (excepting Forts Ethan Allen, C. F. Smith and Ward) would be lost to urban development. Nonetheless, the ribbon of green on city maps marked preservation of the McMillan Commission vision.
Information and Public Concerns
Despite a modicum of published historical works concerning the forts and Jubal Early’s famous 1864 raid on Washington which tested the defenses, the story of Washington’s defense or even its forts remains unfamiliar at local, regional or even national levels. NPS brochures are not available at most of the sites. With the exception of NPS historian Stanley McClure’s rudimentary and obscure mimeographed pamphlet discussion of forts in Federal possession, and individual site historical studies for the files, often poorly placed generic signs and isolated Civil War Centennial bronze tablet/stone markers provide limited information. The public may wonder what government administrators might be doing with the forts/parks other than simple custodianship.
In 1996, Jacqui Handly prepared a National Park service report, Civil War Defenses of Washington DC, A Cultural Landscape Inventory, that identified and evaluated the contributing landscape features of the federally managed sites. The report, apparently never widely circulated to the public, concluded: “The historical fort system within the District of Columbia and sections of Virginia and Maryland still protects Washington, not from external aggression but from inappropriate development that could adversely impact the low scale buildings and green open spaces that define the unique visual character of the nation’s capital. Just as important, many physical remnants of the Civil War defenses are available to further our understanding of our nation’s great struggle to define and achieve a strong and unified democracy.”
Seven years later, the NPS released for public review and comment and published in 2004, a Fort Circle Parks Final Management Plan and a Historic Resource Study. Other jurisdictions have produced similar types of bureaucratic documents for their sites. Such praiseworthy internal work (with at least some peer and public review) indicated progress by prescribed stages if not the proactive on-site implementation often sought by citizenry and interest groups.
Frankly, non-Federal administration of Forts Ward, C. F. Smith and Battery Bailey by local jurisdictions often seemed in the forefront by providing well-preserved (even reconstructed) earthworks, public contact station/education as well as interpretive on-site marking for visitor consumption. The museum at Ford ward has one of the best collections of Civil War uniforms and artifacts in the country as well as the only museum exhibits specifically focusing on the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Indeed, public input provided to the National Park Service while valuable was often diffuse and unfocused through the years, mainly episodic in response to some solicitation of interest or perceived neglect of a niche, site-specific, often unique, issue by that agency.
Meanwhile, actual site conditions changed little or varied greatly in terms of maintenance, landscape and cultural resource issues, interpretive/educational facilities and tools, and fiscal resource constraints. Citizen concern for site conditions (erosion, natural over-growth and public safety) seemingly went unaddressed – at least in perception. The competition for resources and focus at all levels of government could be appreciated but innovative solutions seemed elusive.
Suddenly the pace of interest and involvement has quickened in the past few years, led by privately undertaken efforts like Washington D.C.’s Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City survey, done in 2003 in response to the draft NPS management plan. In 2006, the prestigious Civil War Preservation Trust 2006 drew national attention when it cited the Defenses of Washington among the ten “Most Endangered Civil War Battlefields,” a status the Trust continued with identification of the Defenses of Washington as “At Risk Sites” in 2007.
Other local groups and citizens continued to raise questions of public stewardship at specific sites, such as Fort Ethan Allen and Fort C. F. Smith in Arlington as well as Fort Reno and Fort De Russy in the District, challenging apparent lack of response (if not indifference) by public officials. On the other hand, government agencies at all levels have begun more actively to attempt resolution of public outreach issues through increased consultations, partnering, development of websites as supplements for internal reviews and institutional response. Given the realities of segmented management, administration, conflicting agendas and priorities, budgetary stringency, and diverse disciplinary interests and applications – history, archeology, natural and environmental sciences, historic preservation, recreation, interpretation and education - results have been mixed at best.
Two Critical Studies
Analyses by the Committee of 100 and the National Park Service National Capital Region remain critical for understanding both public perceptions and internal agency positions on the Fort Circle Parks (Federal) portion of the Defenses of Washington park system today. Each, in its own way provides a baseline for mid-decade (2003-2007) statement of conditions, problems, issues and opportunities suggested by the system as a whole and various parts specifically.
The Committee of 100 Call for Action 2003 (Private): The Committee of 100 captured the essence of the situation when offering “A Call to Action on the Fort Circle Parks Draft Management Plan” on August 15, 2003. It forthrightly suggested that, “the final plan – if properly articulated, strongly supported and effectively funded – can launch a powerful effort to turn these parks into a functioning system that will serve both present and future generations.” The group urged “the establishment of a wide range of public-private partnerships that together can move the process along and stay involved” as resource multipliers when in many cases such might well prove less so. Based upon discussion and site tours, it announced specific findings and recommendations as follows;
Findings
Fascinating Story Marred by Inadequate Interpretation Linkage
Deteriorated State of Park Lands
Issues of Public Access and Visitor Safety
Threat from Development and Construction
Lack of Visitor Services and Interpretation
Significance to African American History Linkage Unfulfilled
Low Priority Given to Management of the Parks
Recommendations
Federal Legislation to ensure recognition of significance, unified management and private sector partnership as well as adequate resources by creating either a specific Fort Circle Parks unit of the National Park Service system or a broader national heritage area that would coordinate programs among the many government jurisdictions and the private sector.
A Revised Management Plan indicating specifically dedicated management and determined stabilization and restoration for site and systems historic preservation.
Improvement of public safety at sites.
Connect parks with improved hiker/biker trail.
Improved public access from neighborhoods.
Provide and staff visitor contact facilities east and west of the Anacostia River particularly by rehabilitation of Battleground Cemetery caretaker’s house and facilities at other specific sites; partnering with private organizations for enhanced on-site interpretation; develop creative interpretive/educational visitor tools; institute educational materials and programs for DC schools and libraries.
Identify additional land acquisition to protect the parks from adverse developments, to improve the quality of the visitor’s experience, to enhance historic view sheds and cultural landscapes and to improve park management
Identify natural resources and issues including wildlife habitats and storm water management of the Fort Circle Parks.
Provide estimates of funding and a priority schedule for additional studies identified in the draft NPS Management Plan for the Fort Circle Parks.
Provide for pilot programs to test and develop other detailed research on best scientific management practices for use with the Fort Circle Parks
Prohibit cell towers or similar intrusions in the Fort Circle Parks
Assure that all park personnel – top to bottom – are fully trained in the values of the Fort Circle Parks, their resources and that they know the policies, procedures and proper techniques for their care.
Provide guidance and direction for development of private/public partnerships in conjunction with Fort Circle Parks
Correct Misalignment of Staffing and Funding Accorded the Fort Circle Parks
In conclusion, the Committee of 100 “Call For Action” emphasized partner-building through hosting of workshops, different inter-governmental as well as intra-governmental relationships, outreach to private organizations and establishment of two new federally chartered private entities – a Conservancy (as a mechanism to support fundraising, promotion and partner programs) and an Advisory Committee (a citizens advisory group for matters relating to all NPS units located within DC but with separate subcommittees focusing on specific park units such as the Fort Circle Parks.)
National Park Service Fort Circle Parks Final Management Plan 2004 (Public): Based upon internal drafting and public input, the National Park Service published the long-awaited document that addressed a number of the issues introduced by groups like the Committee of 100 as well as individual private citizens and diverse friends constituencies of the Defenses of Washington park system. After twenty-six pages of context and zoning/basic strategies discussion, authors of “The Plan” portion recounted how two of three alternatives advanced in the draft document had been rolled into one preferred solution. Unfortunately, neither specific citing of the original three alternatives nor a succinct featured layout of that solution aided readers of the final document. In many ways encouraging, in others seemingly more simply consensus-seeking compromise, the NPS Plan proffered Management Actions in the following areas;
Cultural Resources
- Focus
- national significance of battle of Fort Stevens and ring of forts
- activities of the Civilian Conservation Corps at the sites
- McMillan Plan and early 20th century urban planning and park/parkway
design concepts
- stabilization of earthworks, control of erosion, vegetation management
and archeological evaluations
- preservation of CCC restoration of Fort Stevens with recommendation
for national recognition as national battlefield, national historical
landmark or national historic site in its own right
- featured development of walking tour and trail at Fort
Stevens/Battleground National Cemetery site as well as incorporation of
the battle of Fort Stevens into a brochure concerning the defense sites
system and evolution of preservation efforts and connective greenbelt
Natural Resources
- Focus
- maintain greenbelt around the city for its natural, cultural
and scenic values
- removal of exotic vegetation to ensure habitat for native plant and
animal species
- maintain forest canopy over earthworks
- survey and monitor park boundaries against encroachments
- eliminate illegal dumping, manage storm water, control erosion, zone to
protect park resources
- seek and implement opportunities to correct non-park storm water
source impact
Recreation
- Focus
- improve existing games facilities where needed
- develop a new 23-mile trail to link most of the fort sites and connect the
green corridor of the system in consultation with other governmental and
private organizations using city sidewalks where necessary
- place signage along trail, install safety measures, develop brochure
- utilize trail concept to reflect original systemic concept of the
defenses, the intent of McMillan Commission for greenbelt parkland and,
produce a brochure and place appropriate interpretive and directional
signs along trail
- integrate Fort Circle Trail as part of braided trail system of the region
Visitor Use and Development
- Focus
- develop a comprehensive interpretive plan incorporating partnerships
with governmental (Monocacy) and other jurisdictional (Fort Ward)
for interpretive staffing, visitor center exhibit, publications, wayside
exhibits and other interpretive media such as video and audio-tour tape
- develop a small year-round visitor contact facility in the vicinity of Fort
Stevens as focal point of the system, offering visitor orientation and
interpretation and serving as the start of a driving tour of the forts
- improve restroom, picnic and parking facilities to enhance visitor
experience
redevelop the Fort Dupont activity center as an education center for
school and community groups, offering programs in cultural history,
natural resources and environmental education and promoting community
partnerships as well as local indoor and outdoor classrooms
- utilize Fort Marcy as a key location for introducing national visitors to the
fort system due to location on George Washington Memorial Parkway – a
change in interpretive focus to emphasize fortification system
place a kiosk near Fort Dupont earthworks as a site for interpreting the
southern and eastern quadrants of the fortification system and as a visitor
starting point for exploration of the forts there
Park Management and Operations
- Focus
- Continued division of the fort resources between Rock Creek Park,
National Capital Parks – East and George Washington memorial Parkway
units although funding and staffing needs will be coordinated among the
parks
- increase staff to operate proposed year-round contact facilities and offer
orientation and interpretive programs focusing on the history of the forts.
- increase law enforcement patrols to forts/parks sites
- increase funding to cover preservation, stabilization, restoration and
staffing
A significant “Alternatives Considered but no Analyzed Further” section to the Plan proved enlightening. Departing from earlier ideas such as a “Fort Drive” road linking some of the Civil War fortifications in the District of Columbia Highway Plan of 1898 and a turn-of-the-century legislation for a Fort Stevens-Lincoln National Military Park, NPS Management Plan authors showed how other concepts were discarded or integrated in some other incarnation to the new plan. For instance;
Name Change – to “Civil War Fort Circle Parks” or “Civil War Defenses of Washington” was deemed to lie beyond NPS purview and require an act of Congress.
Establishing the Fort Circle Drive – deemed no longer possible after 1962
Developing a Continuous Bicycle/Foot Trail – proposed in the 1960s, commenced after 1968 Master Plan acceptance in 1974 but never fully implemented, the apparent physical limitations led to alternative concept verbiage noted above.
Restoring or Reconstructing Forts – rejected given NPS historic properties treatment levels, high cost and vandalism potential as well as desecration of natural resources (forest canopy)
Establishing a separate NPS unit – dismissed because of “level of significance” qualifiers, sufficiency of current park affiliation preservation to prevent loss or destruction, sufficiency of interpretation and visitor use of sites across three existing parks and the logistical difficulties of operation and management covering all four quadrants of the city resulting in duplication of resources.
Adding a Major Visitor Center - dismissed as lying beyond the scope of the plan plus duplicating Fort Ward’s superior facility.
PART II:
THE PRESENT - GAINING TRACTION
Implementation through Consultation and Discussion
People are talking with one another – up and down chains of command, inter-governmentally and from public to private sector (and, in reverse). The subject of the Defenses of Washington and Forts Circle Parks surfaces across the city in forums and special meetings, e-mail traffic and verbal dialogue. Comity and professionalism obtain despite frustrations over niche issues such as the first phase of improvement and solution to issues and problems has finally begun after three-four years of ramp-up post the aforementioned studies. Praiseworthy progress can be sensed but with reservations that words still need to translate into actions. Ponderous process and incomplete transparency of communication continues to baffle, even rankle citizens. Still, the fact of dialogue between public officials and the public, the inclusion and building of coalitions and communication between sites across jurisdictional boundaries (all concerned with historical property preservation and interpretation plus natural resources and recreation) seem encouraging. We talk, we listen – but do we hear, remains the question.
Something of a clearing house of facts, opinions, suggestions has been stood up thanks to; (a) Regional Office level of the NPS with private and other public parties such as the 2006 and 2007 briefings with the authors, last month’s session focusing almost exclusively on the NPS website development although the agenda cited other progress, (b) unit level meetings of Fort Circle Parks professionals and non-NPS fort site managers as in the case of National Capital Parks-East on February 22, 2007 while, (c) professional private sector presentations to highlight the progress in consortium development have figured prominently on the agenda of groups like the Friends of Fort Ward and the Arlington Heritage Alliance and the Association of Oldest Inhabitants (of DC).
It must be noted that enthusiasm and energy seem to fluctuate within bureaucracies given the span of responsibilities and perception of critical issues presented from communities and individuals outside government. Still, niche concerns of neighborhoods and advisory groups in the District of Columbia remain vital to building customer satisfaction with official stewardship.
Tackling the Outstanding Issues
The record then to the moment suggests progress. There has been some positive National Park Service response to (a) a considerable number of actions that resulted from the 2004 Management Plan, including a detailed response to the Committee of 100 observations and recommendations presented in August 2006; (b) the two regional office meetings in the 2006 and 2007 that included extensive discussions with the authors and others; (c) other meeting on niche issues with specific groups in the summer of 2007.
Response to the Committee of 100 study and completed projects per Master Plan according to the NPS record appear to be;
Fascinating Story
Great Attention to Information Age Technology products
Public programs like Fort Circle Parks Week, Annual Fort Stevens Day Celebration/Commemoration
Preliminary discussions of partnering with Alexandria, Va. (Fort Ward) and Arlington County, Va. (Fort C. F. Smith)
Planning Process Implementation – for Long Range Interpretive Program, suggested Framework for Curriculum Development and On-Site Education
(Parks as Classrooms project) etc.
Deteriorating State of Lands
Improvements at Battleground National Cemetery – rostrum roof replacement, stone enclosure wall, cleaning of headstones
Four-year archaeological evaluation commenced leading to knowledge base building for Fort DeRussy’s involvement in battle of Fort Stevens
Historic Structures Report on Battleground National Cemetery Lodge leading to historical colors repainting
Earthwork stabilization at Fort DeRussy, earthwork management plan for Fort Marcy
Collaborative archeological work with Arlington County concerning Fort Ethan Allen earthworks
Collaborative work with University of Maryland Landscape Architecture Program on a GIS-based “concept plan” for Fort Circle Parks Trail
Cultural Resources Staff training on earthwork management
Public Access and Visitor Safety
Partnering with American Hiking Society for a niche volunteer project
Development of a headstone cleaning volunteer arrangement for Battleground National Cemetery
Casey Trees Foundation - 3 tree plantings
Trails Assessment in progress
Fort Dupont picnic area improvement volunteer project with Price Waterhouse Coopers
Cooperative arrangement with Student Conservation Association crews from local high schools for work on Fort Circle Parks Hiker Biker trail
Cooperative arrangement with National Civilian Community Corps, Wholeness for Humanity, Casey Tree endowment and other local/neighborhood groups for invasive plant removal and trash pick-up on Fort Circle Parks Hiker/Biker Trail
Lack of Visitor Services and Interpretation
Identification of Action Items for calendar year 2006 and part of 2007;
- sign assessment completion
- consolidation of all project management information system statements to identify similarities and possibly funding
- update Brochure
- update Civil War Defenses of Washington website
Significance to African American History
Identification of Action Items for calendar year 2006 and part of 2007;
- work with NP Foundation African American Experience Fund to tell the
story
- develop Brochure
- update website
Low Priority to Management of Fort Circle Parks
“Collectively all the Park Unit Superintendents have been working with their respective divisions to provide interpretive programs and resource protection”
Spring of 2006 – committee established with diverse professionals from three park units to establish and achieve common goals within the Fort Circle Parks System, identification of action items with sub-committees.
Additional progress in 2006 and 2007 appears to have been made in the following areas according to the Minutes of the Fort Circle Parks Meeting of February 22, 2007 and the NPS Agenda for June 6, 2007 meeting with the authors;
Development of proposed Fort Circle Parks logo – under internal review
Site Survey of Sign Inventory - in progress
New comprehensive brochure - under development
Identification of title – “Fort Circle Parks – Civil War Defenses of Washington DC” under discussion and internal review
Condition Assessment of four specific sites Forts Foote, Dupont, Marcy and Totten – in progress
Development of Safety Message Communication with United States Park Police and NPS safety offices – draft language under development
Website review – under internal review
Schedule Meeting(s) with Partner Groups – Fort Ward, Committee of 100, Civil War Preservation Trust – list development of such groups underway and on-going
Managing Earthworks training - scheduled
Assessment of Trail system – draft under internal review
National Capital Region newsletter article highlighting forts completed
Results – Accomplishments and Unaddressed Misses
Both the casual observer as well as the ardent champion of the Fort Circles Park – Defenses of Washington can applaud such effort since 2003 while wondering that such effort has been so weakly communicated generally to concerned citizenry and interest groups. Moreover, the unwieldy planning and implementation process seems to suggest a certain stagnancy of response and most certainly hides achievement or confines it to seemingly marginal results in terms of major accomplishment.
In the record since 2003, can be cited major unresolved issues to date;
No significant improvement on on-site conditions with regard to signage/markers, interpretation, selective natural and man-made refuse/debris clearing or natural resource management and public safety (citizen surveys done in three-fourths the time taken by NPS process has identified such issues across the Fort Circle Parks over a three-four year continuing time-frame).
De facto recognition of Alexandria’s Fort Ward facilities as the center piece of the Defenses of Washington forts/parks system today offsetting visitor service and forts/parks unit needs of the National Park Service
Administrative “trifurcation” of NPS Fort Circle Parks with management under Rock Creek Park, National Capital Parks-East and Washington Memorial Parkway leading to uneven and disparate identities, management and coordination – unity problems.
No clear implementation of the NPS Master Plan identification of the Fort Circle Parks premier site – Fort Stevens/Battleground National Cemetery for major improvements regarding visitor contact center, signage/interpretative marker and other needs reflecting priorities that this is the flagship because of historical significance in preventing the Confederates from capturing the nation’s capital and President Lincoln’s appearance there during the battle.
Battleground National Cemetery itself remains poorly maintained. The former superintendent’s lodge, based on Major General Montgomery Meigs’ prototype, was restored in the mid-1990s but is now closed. The flagpole and ceremonial rostrum (built in 1914 in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Stevens) are in bad condition. There is no onsite professional staff to monitor the condition of the cemetery. There are no interpretive markers explaining the battle of Fort Stevens. In 2004 the DC Preservation League included Battleground Cemetery on its list of Most Endangered Places.
Weak and often one-sided communication with civic/neighborhood and private citizen advocates on issues of specific site concerns.
Inadequate and sluggish response to looming issues such as implications of the Walter Reed BRAC (part of the Fort Stevens battlefield), Civil War Trails extension of their Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland program into the National Capital Region jurisdiction, Civil War Preservation trust continuing identification of Fort Circle Parks as endangered battlefield properties.
Lack of proactive inclusion of Fort Circle Parks – Defenses of Washington issues with the Centennial Initiative program – in particular, the Fort Stevens/Battlefield National Cemetery challenge and opportunity.
Perceived negativism or at best inertial response to creative solutions and transformational ideas – a National Heritage Area embracing the defenses, park administrative unification, historical tourism partnering with District of Columbia agencies, etc.
Perceived insensitivity and lack of response on key site-intrusive moves at Fort Stanton (Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish Church and Fort Stevens (Military Road School as well as potentially, Emory Church reconstruction).
Perceived lack of prioritization of evident needs within National Capital Region for the Fort Circle Parks, Fort Stevens/Battleground National Cemetery by proactively seeking budgetary relief, serious partnering and restoration of public confidence.
PART III:
THE FUTURE- SUSTAINING REJUVENTATION
Turning Promises into Results – The Short-Term Agenda
Put simply, dialogue and partnering must continue, initiatives begun must be completed, bureaucratic process streamlined and expedited – and public diplomacy must be improved – in the short term (sooner not later). “Walking the Talk” has commenced but the unfulfilled agenda demands completion. Moreover, National Park Service Management Plan items not currently being addressed should be – sooner, not later. One may presume other jurisdictions involved in the Defenses of Washington parks project have similar incomplete opportunities for achievement.
Senior and mid-level leaders in all jurisdictions need to be at the cusp of innovative rejuvenation of Defenses of Washington parks. Expectations of partnering – fiscal, programmatic and conceptual – cannot rely on other public merely “taking up the slack” or shouldering core responsibilities across the region. Barnard spoke of a Defenses of Washington fort system – government managers today must similarly effect a coalition of elements in a unified Defenses of Washington park system.
The bottom line remains resourcing. Money. The fight for the budget may lie at the top management level, but opportunities can only be seized with vision and will-power. Figures provided in the NPS Management Plan, Appendix D: Cost Estimates (adjusted with inflation to date) are the starting point.
The opportunities afforded by region-wide historical and park units in a system style “Fort Circle Parks – Defenses of Washington” excite from every angle. The National Park Service has already identified over-arching dimensions in its Management Plan, with the historical basis firmly reflected in Part I of this assessment. National, regional and local opportunities are one dimension. Cross-disciplinary or applicatory dimensions among cultural, natural and recreational dimensions afford still others. Special attention to youth and mature activities and to physical as well as mental activities all make demands on stewardship responsibilities of the National Park Service, Arlington, Fairfax and Montgomery counties and the city of Alexandria as they relate to fort and park preservation and management. Out-of-box thinking, rejection of stove-piped parochialism perpetuated by organizational and mental constraint, and sheer willpower MUST be placed uppermost to accomplish future promise for the Defenses of Washington park system.
The Way Forward
Surely the initiative belongs with the “800-pound gorilla” – in this case the National Park Service with its responsibility for the preponderance of sites styled Fort Circle Parks. However, the system is much grander, as even the NPS Management
Plan evokes by reference to a modern overlay of the historic 1865 map of the defenses. John Gross Barnard and the engineers plus his War Department superiors all understood and promulgated “conceptual unity” for the Defenses of Washington - with sectors South of the Potomac, North of the Potomac and East of the Anacostia as reference points. Then and now, jurisdictional ownership cannot obviate systemic solutions and conceptualization on that basis.
Innovative thinking and transformational action have begun, especially at professional staff levels. However, they require careful nurturing, public awareness and understanding – and support. They also need partnering beyond governmental entities charged with site ownership. Partnering implies a relationship in which each entity has equal status and certain independence but also has unspoken or formal obligation to the other or others. Partnering draws upon untapped potential but with accompanying responsibility for equity in the common effort.
The NPS Centennial Initiative, the multi-state Civil War Trails, District of Columbia’s Cultural Tourism program, and perhaps other disciplinary entities of which we are not yet familiar reflect the new way of cross-cut thinking among governmental, non-governmental, private enterprise at national, regional, state and local levels. A myriad of programs, activities and organizations await the congealing opportunities of fresh focus and action on the Civil War Defenses of Washington parks.
PART IV: THE SESQUICENTENNIAL CHALLENGE
An Agenda of Change
Beyond the immediacy of addressing and completing the short-term agenda items noted above, America’s Civil War Sesquicentennial beckons by 2011. Opportunity knocks – only once, perhaps, and reminds us of the vast accomplishments of Mission 66
of the National Park Service and the Civil War Centennial fifty years ago. Therefore, the authors suggest embarking upon an agenda of change with respect to Fort Circle Parks – Defenses of Washington. The agenda challenge includes:
FULLY RESOURCE (Fully Fund) through budgetary and innovative financing, languishing Fort Circle Parks – Defenses of Washington at national and local levels. (All Jurisdictions)
CREATE a National Heritage Area – The Defenses of Washington National Heritage Area – to embrace a region of cultural and natural resource sites focusing on the fort parks from Fort Washington to post-Civil War defense installations fully recognizing diverse jurisdictional components and emphasizing this national treasure and the nation’s capital. (All Jurisdictions)
PRIORITIZE the Fort Circle Parks – Defenses of Washington System Flagship - Fort Stevens/Battleground National Cemetery and Jubal Early’s Raid, 1864; as an alternative history experience with funding, properly staffed visitor exhibit center as well as appropriate signage, interpretive markers and programs telling the story of President Abraham Lincoln and what may have been the unheralded crucial battle of the Civil War. (National Park Service)
SYSTEMATIZE Cultural, Natural and Recreational themes - Inter- and Intra-governmental Cooperation and Consortium for Stewardship beyond jurisdictional boundaries. (All Jurisdictions)
ACHIEVE Conceptual Interpretive Unity - Intra-governmental and Intra-governmental Cooperation for themes beyond jurisdictional boundaries;
- Protecting the Northern Approach (Battery Bailey, Forts Bayard, De Russy, Stevens, Slocum, Totten, Bunker Hill)
- Beacons of African-American Freedom (The Anacostia Line, The Arlington Line)
- River Defense and Heavy Armaments of the Industrial Age (Fort Foote)
- Protecting Gateways (Battery Kemble, Forts Marcy, Ethan Allen, C.F. Smith)
- Rally Points on the Southern Line (Forts Scott, Ward and Willard)
- Sharing the Vistas of the Capitol Region (Forts Reno, Stanton)
(All Jurisdictions)
ENSURE Site Safety – Inter-governmental Cooperation (All Jurisdictions)
PROMOTE Research – Historical Archaeological, Natural, Environmental (All Jurisdictions – but especially National Park Service )
INCREASE Access to Sites by public transportation and non-motorized means (All Jurisdictions)
IMPROVE Site Protection – From vandalism overuse, erosion, exotic vegetation etc. (All Jurisdictions)
DEFEND SITES – from Incompatible Uses and Developments (All Jurisdictions)
ENHANCE the Metrics of Interpretation/Education – Signage, Markers, Site Programs (All Jurisdictions)
DEVELOP Management Metrics - Administrative Reorganization through Managerial/Administrative Unification – Reorganize the Fort Circle Parks as a Single Administrative entity with accompanying internal process streamlining and transparent and proactive public diplomacy (National Park Service)
ACCELERATE Additional Opportunities – Educational Symposia, Cultural Tourism, Marketing, Partnering and Enhanced Outreach (All Jurisdictions)
EFFECT Preservation Partnering for Walter Reed BRAC – Inter-governmental and Private Collaboration on Walter Reed BRAC to effect additional battlefield preservation relative to Fort Stevens/Battleground National Cemetery (National Park Service et. al)
PROMOTE Economic Opportunity and Community cohesion – Inter-governmental and private entrepreneurship using the Georgia Avenue Corridor (Fort Stevens-Battleground-Walter Reed BRACed) and Fort Circle Parks - Anacostia as models of/for public and private economic partnering in heritage tourism and expanded community economic opportunity and cohesion (Federal, City, Private Sector Entrepreneurship)
