The

Civil A

Historic

United War Contract National

National States Appendices

Defenses Washington,

No. Resources Part

Department

Capital

144CX300096053 Park

II

Service

DC Region

of of

Interior

Washington Study Chevy

CEHP, • •

Chase,

Incorporated Prepared

Maryland

by A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part II

Appendices

United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC

Contract No. 144CX300096053

Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland List of Appendices Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 2 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

A. General Orders No. 56, Headquarters Department of Washington, 22d Army Corps, April 26th, 1865, announcing the reorganizations of districts within the department. Record Group 393, Preliminary Inven­ tory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862-Dec. 1867, Volume 5 of 6.

B. General Orders No. 77, War Department, Adjutant General’s Office, April 28, 1865, For Reducing Expenses of the Military Establishment. U.S., War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1880-1901 (Serial 125) Series III, Volume IV, 1280-8, as reproduced on CD-ROM by the Guild Press of Indiana..

C. Thomas W. Berry to Major James Gleason, Quartermaster’s Office, Washington, July 28, 1865, relating to claims for the use of his land at Fort Greble. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspon­ dence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, DC.”

D. S.B. Scagg’s relinquishment of claims for land on which various fortifications, including Fort Chaplin, were located, October 24, 1865. Record Group 77, Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

E. Gilbert Vanderwerken’s relinquishment of claims for land on which Fort Marcy was located, October 24, 1865. Record Group 77, Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

F. Ellen J. King’s relinquishment of claims for land on which Battery Parrott was located, October 28, 1865. Record Group 77, Records ofDetached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

G. Brevet Brigadier General Barton S. Alexander to Major. General Richard Delafield, Chief Engineer, U.S. Army, December 12, 1865, enclosing “Account of Auction Sales of Engineer Property . . .” Record Group 77, Entry 18, Letters Received, 1826-66, A2395.

H. Defences of Washington, List of transfers of Public property as compensation for damages and releases by the Claimant, December 16, 1865. Record Group 77, Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

I. Report of Government buildings at Fort Marcy and recommendations for disposition of them. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, D.C.”

J. Report of Government buildings at Fort Bayard and recommendations for disposition of them. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, D C ” Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 3 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

K. Special Orders No. 54, Headquarters Department of Washington, March 15, 1866, concerning Special Orders No. 54, Headquarters Department of Washington, March 15, 1866, concerning Ordnance, Ordnance stores and Engineer property at various forts. Record Group 94, Entry 44, Orders and Circulars, 1797­ 1910.

L. General Order No. 17, Headquarters Department of Washington, April 27th, 1866, announcing the discontinuance of the “Defences of Washington and Garrison of Washington.” Record Group 393, Prelimi­ nary Inventory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862-Dec. 1867, Volume 6 of 6.

M. General Order No. 62, Headquarters Department of Washington, October 19th, 1866, assignment of troops. Record Group 393, Preliminary Inventory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862-Dec. 1867, Volume 6 of 6.

N. Major D. C. Houston to Brevet Major General A. A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, May 11, 1869, and George W. Berry, Preacher in Charge, Emory Church, to Henry Bayne, .October 27, 1868, relating to the church’s claims for use and damages at Fort Stevens during the Civil War. Record Group 77, Correspondence Relating to Fortifications, Entry 36, Letters Received (“A” File), November 1867-Novem- ber 1870, A2298.

O. Papers in the claims case of Ellen J. King for land use and damages for Battery Parrott. Record Group 92, Claims Branch, 1861-1889, Document File, Quartermaster Stores, Rent, Services, and Miscellaneous Claims, F-1240.

P. “The Present Condition of the Defenses of Washington, Built during the Civil War, 1861-1865,” in Frank L. Averill, Guide to the National Capital and Maps of Vicinity including the Fortifications (Washington, DC: Published by The Engineering Platoon of the Engineer Corps, D.C.N.G. , 1892), 14-24.

Q. “The Fort Drive,” In U.S., Congress, Senate. The Improvement of the Park System of the District of Columbia, 57th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 166. Edited by Charles Moore. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902, 111-12. .

R. Authorization to purchase land for Forts Davis and Dupont parks through condemnation, 1912. United States Statutes at Large, Containing the Laws and Concurrent Resolutions... and Reorganization Plans, Amendments to the Constitution and Proclamations, 1789-. Washington, DC.: The Government Printing Office, 1918, Volume 37, Part 1, 1911-13, pages 178-79.

S. Colonel W.W. Hart to Brigadier General William M. Black, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, June 12, 1917, discussing the proposed route of Fort Drive. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 4 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

T. Colonel Clarence S. Ridley, Officer in Charge of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, July 30, 1919, Record Group 77, Entry 103, General Correspondence, 1894­ 1923, #124636.

U. October 1919 listing of forts, Record Group 42, Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, General Correspondence, 307, Public Grounds: Extension of Park System, Civil War Forts Parkway.

V. Judge C.D. Bundy hands in a copy of report prepared by the Secretary of the Board of Trade DC. and himself as chairman of Committee on Parks of the Board of Trade, suggesting the acquisition for park purposes of the dismantled forts around the outskirts of the City of Washington, January 1920. Record Group 42, General Correspondence, 1907-21, 307 Public Grounds: Extension of Park System: Civil War Forts Parkway.

W. Memorandum from J.C.L. (J.C. Langdon?) to Major Ridley, October 2, 1920, Subject: New Park areas to be acquired . Record Group 42, General Correspondence, 1907-21, 307 Public Grounds: Extension of Park System: Civil War Forts Parkway.

X. House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 8792, October 21, 1921, relating to a survey and “a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia.”

Y. Senate Bill, S. 1340, December 17, 1923, relating to a survey and “a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia” which passed in the Senate on December 30, 1924.

Z. Memorandum from Major J.F. Bell to Major Holcombe, February 21, 1924, requesting a recommenda­ tion from the Traffic Board relative to Fort Boulevard so that the Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, can give it official status. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897­ 1955, #155186-6.

AA. Parkway Connecting Civil War Forts, Calendar No. 627, Senate Report No. 585, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Serial 8221, May 20, 1924, May 20 (calendar day, May 22), 1924.

BB. Memorandum from Captain J.E. Wood to the Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, February 20, 1924, extolling the merits of Fort Drive. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897­ 1955, #155186-6.

CC. Capt. J.E. Wood, Assistant to Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, to Lt. Col. C O. Sherrill, Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, March 10,1924, Record Group 328, General Records, Plan­ ning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1. Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 5 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

DD. J.C. Langdon to Major Brown, July 31, 1925, Subject: Fort Stevens, Fort Slocum and the Fort Drive from 16th Street to North Capitol Street. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

EE. J.C. Langdon to Major Brown, August 3,1925, Subject: Fort Slocum and the fort drive from Sixteenth Street to North Capitol Street. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

FF. U.S. Grant, III, Executive and Disbursing Officer, National Capital Park and Planning Commission, to D.W. O=Donohue, July 31, 1926, relating to the route of Fort Drive. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

GG. C.W. Eliot, II, City Planner, “Fort Drive” Plan, April 1927. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

HH. Carey H. Brown, Engineer, to The Newspaper Information Service, 1322 New York Avenue, Wash­ ington, DC, May 4, 1927, RG328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

II. House of Representatives Bill, HR. 10556, February 6, 1928, to acquire Fort Stevens.

JJ. C.W. Eliot, City Planner, National Capital Park and Planning commission, to Major Brown, May 10, 1929, offering three schemes for the location of Fort Drive south of Fort Reno. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

KK. Capper-Cramton Act, Public Law No. 284, 71st Congress, Approved May 29, 1930, Statutes at Large, Volume 46, page 482.

LL. T.C. Jeffers to Captain Chisolm, Relating to Fort Drive, March 13, 1931, establishes Fort Drive sec­ tions for convenience in dividing the plan.. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

MM. Charles W. Eliot, 2d, Director of Planning, to L.F. Schmeckebier, The Brookings Institution, January 26, 1933, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1.

NN. National Capital Park and Planning Commission Emergency Public Works Program, Brief Justification for Fort Drive Projects, August 31, 1933, arranged and discussed by sections. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 6 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

00. Documents pertaining to and those submitted with the application for loan or grant for PWA funds to begin construction of Fort Drive, including a copy of the application and AGeneral Specifications—Fort Drive Project, 1938. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897-1955, #248515.

PP. Chauncey P. Carter, Lawyer, on behalf of the owner of lot 3 to 7 inclusive in Square 1608, to Melvin C. Hazen, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, September 3, 1938, pertaining to the latest plan for Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive.

QQ. AStatement Regarding Fort to Fort Dive, Washington, D. C., March 17, 1939, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

RR. T.S. Settle, Secretary, Memorandum to Mr. Gillen, March 5, 1940, SUBJ: Fort Drive; U.S., Office of National Capital Parks, RG328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1.

SS. “Fort Drive,” The Washington Evening Star, Saturday, November 16, 1940.

TT. Memorandum from A.E. Demaray, Associate Director, National Park Service to the Secretary of the Interior, August 12, 1944, informing him that “The District Commissioners have advised the Planning Com­ mission that they will undertake at this time with available planning funds, supplemented by an allocation from the public Roads Administration, the preparation of plans and specifications for two sections of the Fort Drive . . .” Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Com­ mittee on.

UU. “Memorandum of Agreement of October 24, 1944 Between the National Park Service and the District of Columbia Relating to Development of Two Sections of Fort Drive.” Historical Collections, Rock Creek Park, National Park Service.

W. Paul P. Cret to Gilmore Clarke, May 22, 1945, and Gilmore Clarke to Paul P. Cret, May 25, 1945, pertaining to the Committee on Transportation of the Washington Chapter, A.I.A. report suggesting a double ring road system, either by elevated or subway road and its relationship to Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive.

WW. Budget Officer and Assessor, District of Columbia, “Acquisition of Land,” January 21, 1947, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #2.

XX. Appendix B, January 23-24, 1947, relating to the action of the National Capital Park and Planning commission regarding the proposals made by the Budget Officer and the Assessor of the District of Colum­ bia that the Fort Drive Project be abandoned. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 7 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

YY. Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, The Commission on Fine Arts, to Honorable John Russell Young, Presi­ dent, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, March 6, 1947, Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive.

ZZ. Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts, to Commissioner John Russell Young, Presi­ dent, Board of commissioners, District of Columbia, March 21, 1947, and Commissioner John Russell Young, President, Board of commissioners, District of Columbia, to Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, Com­ mission of Fine Arts, April 4, 1947, relating to the fate of Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive.

AAA. Stanley McClure, Assistant Chief, National Memorials and Historic Sites Section, National Capital Parks, NPS, to Messers. Kelly, Thompson, Gartside, Jett and Sager, May 24, 1954, SUBJ: Preservation of the Civil War Forts, 1952-54, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 543-36, Civil War Forts, Preservation of.

BBB. President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, to U.S. Grant, III, June 11, 1958, concern­ ing the construction of the Fort Drive. Record Group 351, Entry 21, General files, 1924-68, 7-092, Box 329.

CCC. John F. Kennedy Letter to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House on the Transpor­ tation Needs of the Washington Area, May 27, 1963, which endorses Fort Drive. Kennedy, John F. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President, January 1 to November 22, 1963. Washington, DC.: The Government Printing Office, 1964, 428-31.

DDD. T.C. Jeffers, “A Brief Story of Some of the Civil War Forts and Their Relation to the Proposed Fort Drive and George Washington Memorial Parkway,” November 8, 1935, Rock Creek Park Historical Files, “Fort Marcy.”

EEE. T.C. Jeffers, “The Fort Drive: Chronological History of the More Important Actions and Events Relating Thereto,” February 7, 1947, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545­ 100, Fort Drive, #2.

FFF. T.C. Jeffers, “A Brief History of The Fort Drive — Evolution of its Concept and Function,” March 17, 1947, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2.

GGG. “The Story of the Fort Memorial Freeway 1894 - 1953,” Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia, “Washington Needs The Fort Memorial Freeway,” Pamphlet, (1953?). Civil Defense of Washington Historic Resource Guide Page 8 DRAFT List of Appendices - June 1998

HHH. “History of Fort Drive,” In National Capital Planning Commission, Fort Park System: A Re-evalu­ ation Study of Fort Drive, Washington, D.C. April 1965 By Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates, College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC: National Capital Planning Commission, 1965), 2-9.

III. “Justification: The Fort Drive-Washington, DC., Syllabus, Character of the Project,” (1938), Washing­ ton, D C. Archives, D C. Records, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department (ED), Engineer Depart­ ment Case Files, 1897-1955, #248515.

JJJ. T.S. Settle, “Legal Authority for Acquisition of Land and Construction of the Fort to Fort Drive, in the District of Columbia,” November 14-15, 1940, Record Group328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924­ 67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2.

KKK. “Fort Drive: Acquisition of Land,” Area, Cost and Date of Acquisition, February 1, 1947, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2.

LLL. Approximate Acreage Purchased Under Capper-Cramton Act including those lands acquired for Fort Drive and the fort parks. In National Capital Region offices, compiled by Margaret Stratton. .

MMM. John Nolen, Jr., Director ofPlanning, Memorandum to Mr. Wirth, SUBJ: Fort Dupont Park, June 5, 1937, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 535, Parks and Reservations, Fort Dupont Park.

NNN. Map submitted with Capt. J.E. Wood, Assistant to Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, to Lt. Col. C.O. Sherrill, Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, March 10, 1924, Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1.

OOO. “Fort Drive Map,” In Christine Sadler, AOne More Mile and the District Will Have a Driveway Linking Forts, Road to Pass Fortifications of Civil War, Will Run Along Rims of Hills That Make Saucer of City, Expected to Be One of Nation’s Most Scenic and Historic, The Washington Post, Sunday, October 10, 1937.

PPP. “Map of Fort Drive,” In H. Paul Caemmerer, A Manual on the Origin and Development of Washing­ ton; Senate Document No. 178 (75th Congress, 3d Session) (Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1939), 112. Appendices Appendix A

General Orders No. 56, Headquarters Department of Washington, 22d Army Corps, April 26th, 1865, announcing the reorganizations of districts within the department. Record Group 393, Preliminary Inventory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862-Dec. 1867, Volume 5 of 6. GENERAL ORDERS Headquarters Dept of Washington. No. 5ti J 22d Army Corps, April 26th 1865 I. The following organization of Districts within this Department, is announced for the information and guidance of all concerned: 1st—District of Alexandria, to embrace that portion of the Depart ment of Washington, and all troops serving theteir., lying South of the Potomac,—except the “Northern Neck”—south of the Rail Road from Fredericksburg and Aquia Creek Landing, with Head- quarters at Alexandria. Virginia, to be commanded by Major Gen­ eral Jno. G. PaRK United States Volunteers. .2d.—District of Washington, to embrace that portion of the De- partment of Washington north of the Potomac and all troops serv- ing therein, excepting the City of Washington and the country be­ tween the Potomac and Patuxent rivers, south of the Piscataway, with -Headquarters in Washington. D. C.. to be commanded by Brevet Major General O. B. Wilcox, United States Volunteers. 8d.—District of the Patuxent, to embrace the country between the Potomac and Patuxent rivers and south of the Piscataway, and all troops serving therein—except Point Lookout and immediate vicin­ ity—with Headquarters at or near Port Tobacco, Colonel H. H. Wells, 26th Michigan Volunteers, temporarily in charge. 4th.—District of '’Northern Neck," to embrace the country be­ tween the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers, south of the Fred­ ericksburg and Aquia Creek Rail Road, and all troops serving therein, Colonel N. B. Sweitzer, 16th New York Cavalry, tempora­ rily in charge, with Headquarters at such point as he may select. II The District of St. Mary’s is hereby discontinued. The com­ mander of Point Lookout will report direct to these Headquarters. III. Commanding Officers will report disposition and post of troops within their respective District, with os little delay as prac­ ticable—furnishing lists of Brigades, Regiments aad Batteries, with name of Commanders. By Command of Major General C. C. Augur : J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff; A. A. G.

OFFICIAL.:

A. .A. G. Appendix B

General Orders No. 77, War Department, Adjutant General’s Office, April 28, 1865, For Reducing Expenses of the Military Establishment. U.S., War Department, The War of the Rebellion : A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1880-1901 (Serial 125) Series III, Volume IV, 1280-8, as reproduced on CD-ROM by the Guild Press of Indiana. GENERAL ORDERS No. 77.

WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, April 28, 1865.

FOR REDUCING EXPENSES OF THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.

Ordered:

I. That the chiefs of the respective bureaus of this Department proceed immediately to reduce the expenses of their respective departments to what is absolutely necessary, in view of an immediate reduction of the forces in the field and garrison and the speedy termination of hostilities, and that they severally make out statements of the reductions they deem practicable. V. That the chief engineers stop work on all field fortifications and other works, except those for which specific appropriations have been made by Congress for completion, or that may be required fooor the proper protection of works in progress. VII. The Adjutant-General of the Army will cause immediate returns to be made by all commanders in the field, garrisons, detachments, and posts of their respective forces, with a view to their immediate reduction. VIII. The Quartermaster's, Subsistence, Ordnance, Engineer, and Provost-Marshal-General's departments will reduce the number of clerks and employes to that absolutely required for closing the business of their respective departments, and will without delay report to the Secretary of War the number required of each class or grade. The Surgeon-General will make similar reductions of medical officers, nurses, and attendants in his Bureau. DC The chiefs of the respective bureaus will immediately cause property returns to be made out of the public property in their charge, and a statement of the property in each that may be sold upon advertisement and public sale without prejudice to the service. By order of the Secretary of War:

W. A. NICHOLS, Assistant Adjutant-General Appendix C

Thomas W. Berry to Major James Gleason, Quartermaster’s Office, Washington, July 28, 1865, relating to claims for the use of his land at Fort Greble. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, D C.”

Appendix D

S.B. Scagg’s relinquishment of claims for land on which various fortifications, including Fort Chaplin, were located, October 24, 1865. Record Group 77, Records ofDetached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865. s.'-xX-

Appendix E

Gilbert Vanderwerken’s relinquishment of claims for land on which Fort Marcy was located, October 24, 1865. Record Group 77, Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865. I

Appendix F

Ellen J. King’s relinquishment of claims for land on which Battery Parrott was located, October 28, 1865. Record Group 77, Records ofDetached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

Appendix G

Brevet Brigadier General Barton S. Alexander to Major General Richard Delafield, Chief Engineer, U.S. Army, December 12, 1865, enclosing “Account of Auction Sales of Engineer Property . . .” Record Group 77, Entry 18, Letters Received, 1826-66, A2395.

Appendix H

“Defences of Washington, List of transfers of Public property as compensation for damages and releases by the Claimant, December 16, 1865. Record Group 77, Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1851-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865.

Appendix I

Report of Government buildings at Fort Marcy and recommendations for disposition of them. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, D.C.”

REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES Appendix J

Report of Government buildings at Fort Bayard and recommendations for disposition of them. Record Group 92, Special Files, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, “Defenses of Washington, D C.” REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Appendix K

Special Orders No. 54, Headquarters Department of Washington, March 15, 1866, concerning Ordnance, Ordnance stores and Engineer property at various forts. Record Group 94, Entry 44, Orders and Circulars, 1797-1910. SPECIAL ORDERS. Headquarters Dept. of Washington. No. 64. Washington, D. C., March 16, 1866 [Extract]

IV. Under instructions from the Headquarters of the Army, the following Forts, "Defences North of the Potomac,” will be at once dismantled, viz: “Carroll," "Stanton,” “Baker," “Muhan," "Lin­ coln,” '‘Totten," "Slocum," “Stevens," “Bono,” and “Sumner." All Ordnance and Ordnance Stores will, under the supervision of Brigadier General J. A. Haskin, Commanding Defences of Wash­ ington, be turned in at the Washington Arsenal; such measures in the transfer of loaded projectiles being taken as tn provent accidental explosions. . Thu Engineer property will bo disposed of under instructions to be given by the Engineer Department. The Chief Quartermaster Department of Washington, will furnish the transportation required for the execution of this order. ' By command or Major General. C.C. Augur: J. H. TAYLOR, Assistant Adjutant General official.:

A.A.G. Appendix L

General Order No. 17, Headquarters Department of Washington, April 27th, 1866, announcing the discontinuance of the “Defences of Washington and Garrison of Washington. Record Group 393, Preliminary Inventory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862-Dec. 1867, Volume 6 of 6. GENERAL ORDER. ) Headquarters Dept of Washington, No. 17. J Washington. D. C., April 27th I860. 1st—In consequence of the dismantling of the forts and reduction of the troops in this Department, the Commands known as the 'De­ fences of Washington,’’ and ’’Garrison of Washington," will be dis­ continued on and after the 30th inst. The records will be carefully boxed and labeled, and forwarded to these Head Quarters. All Company Officers serving at the Headquarters of the respective com­ mands will rejoin their proper Companies. A. A. Surgeon R. H. Fowler, U. S. A., (Headquarters, Defences of Washington,) will report for orders to the Medical Director of the Department. -2nd.—The Barracks in and about Washington will hereafter be known os follows. Those occupied by the 5th U. S. Cavalry as 1’Sedgwick Barracks." Those occupied by the 12th U. S. Inf'ty. as ’Russell Barracks.” Those occupied by the 4th US. Art’y. as ’’Renold’s Barracks.” And those at the ’Circle,’ as the ” Lowell Barracks." They will be known os Independent Posts, and on, and after the 30th inst, will render their reports direct to these Head Quarters, 8rd.—Forts Foote and Whipple, and Battery Rogers, on the dis­ continuance of Defences of Washington, will report direct to these Head Quarters. By Command or Major General C. C. Augur: J. H. TAYLOR, Assistant Adjutant General. Official:

a a. G. Appendix M

General Order No. 62, Headquarters Department of Washington, October 19th, 1866, assignment of troops. Record Group 393, Preliminary Inventory 172, Part 1, Department and Defenses of Washington and 22nd Army Corps, 1862-69, Entry 5385, General Orders (Printed), Sept. 1862- Dec. 1867, Volume 6 of 6. GENERAL ORDERS, Headquarters Dept of Washington, No. 62 Washington,. D. C., October 19th, 1866.

The. following assignment of troops, in this Department, is announc­ ed to take effect October 20th, 1866,. or as soon thereafter. as the re­ spective commands can.be established at the points designated. 1st Garrison of Washington : Brevet Major General W. H. Emory, Colonel 6th V. 8. Cavalry. Commanding: 1st and 8rd Battalions 12th U. S. Infantry: 44th Regiment, U. S.(Veteran Reserve) Infantry, and . Detachment 6th U. S. Cavalry—at Sedgwick Barracks: 2. Fort McHenry, Maryland: Brevet Brigadier General H. Bbooks, Colonel 4th U. S. Artillery, Commanding: Company 1, and Headquarters, 4th U. S. Artillery: 8. Fort Washington, Maryland: 'Brevet Lieutenant Colonel F. M. Follett, Captain 4th U. S. Ar­ tillery, Commanding: Companies ‘A,' and 'D,’ 4th V. 8. Artillery: 4. Fort Whipple, Virginia: Major Joseph Stewart, 4th U. S. Artillery, Commanding: Com­ panies 'C,’ and 'H,' 4th U. S. Artillery: 5. Battery Rodgers, Alexandria, Virginia: Brevet Colonel C. L. Best.—Captain 4th U. 8. Artillery, Com- anding : Company ‘F,’ 4th U. S. Artillery: 6. Fort Foot, Maryland.: • Brevet Lieutenant Colonel M. P. Miller,—Captain 4th U. S. Ar- tlllery. Commanding: Company 'E,' 4th U. S. Artillery. 7. The Quartermaster's Department will furnish the transportation necessary to carry this order into effect

By Command or Brevet Major General Ed. R. S. Canby :• J. H. TAYLOR, Assistant Adjutant General. Official:

A. D. C. Appendix N

Major D. C. Houston to Brevet Major General A.A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, May 11, 1869, and George W. Berry, Preacher in Charge, Emory Church, to Henry Bayne, .October 27, 1868, relating to the church’s claims for use and damages at Fort Stevens during the Civil War. Record Group 77, Correspondence Relating to Fortifications, Entry 36, Letters Received (“A” File), November 1867-November 1870, A2298. I

I

I I I I I i I i i

’ I REPROOUCEO AT THte NAiiurmt i

Appendix O

Papers in the claims case of Ellen J. King for land use and damages for Battery Parrott. Record Group 92, Claims Branch, 1861-1889, Document File, Quartermaster Stores, Rent, Services, and Miscellaneous Claims, F-1240. I

7

Appendix P

“The Present Condition of the Defenses of Washington, Built during the Civil War, 1861-1865,” in Frank L. Averill, Guide to the National Capital and Maps of Vicinity including the Fortifications (Washington, DC: Published by The Engineering Platoon of the Engineer Corps, D.C.N.G. , 1892), 14-24. labor and magnitude of the war could be appreciated and THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE DEFEN- the history of the war understood, if the people would SES OF WASHINGTON, BUILT DURING examino even the ruins of the forts which were hurriedly built at the time, and played an important part in the THE CIVIL WAR, 1861-1865. drama, even if some of them never came into action. In looking over some of the old forts located on the sum­ During the war the city or Washington was directly mits of steep hills, and being told that the largest guns made protected by 68 forts, 93 batteries, 20 miles of rille trenches were mounted here, the visitor will look down the steep and several block houses, all being thrown tip within a hillside and wonder how the guns could be draggod to such distance front the center of the city varying front two to a position. eight miles. In the forts were emplacements for 1,120 guns, The views from the forts are usually the flnest which can 807 of which and 98 mortars were actually mounted. The bc found. From many of them, the city, with its glistening batteries were for Held gnus and had 401 emplacements. white Capitol and Monument, can be seen on one side, and The entire circuit of the immediate line of defenses was on the other a magnificent stretch of country with hills and about forty miles. The magnitude of the labor involved streams, farms and forests, stretched out as far as eye can can only now be estimated by those who formed part of reach. From some the great works of suburban improve­ the armies which performed it. ment can be seen going on ; great “ cuts and (Ills ” for some It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the reasons electric railway line or magnificent boulevard, the grading of the locations of the various fortifications, the details of for streets and the building of cottages. From some of the construction, or the history connected with them to any forts all this may bo seen, and in addition a distant view of great extent. The history of the lines and the component the Potomac, with steamers and sailing vessels rippling the parts or them are clear in the memory of those who will silver surface. No visitor to the National Capitol, bo ho a be most interested. The topography of the country will veteran of the war, an artist, a lover of nature, a preacher also bo remembered, or should be seen to understand the or teacher, or busy professional man, will regret a visit to causes of location of the several parts of the defenses. some of the old forts which surround the city. The details of construction of these fortifications can bo No American can stand on the ramparts of the crumbling clearly seen by a visit to some of them which are best forts occupying the summits of these sightly hills without preserved, ns will bo noted hereafter. The purpose of this feelings of patriotism and pride in his country and in its article is simply to tell the interested person tho present Capital. The time has come when a person who visits Wash­ condition of these old earth works and the best means of ington and spends all hie time sightseeing within the city reaching them. limits loses much of the pleasure that is open to him. lie At the outset it may be well to state that these old forts should view the city in its entirety from a distance, to appre­ and batteries cannot fail to be of interest not only to the ciate its beauty. There is almost a general rule that from veteran of the war, and to the historically inclined person, these forts which are yet in good condition, are the best but also to every one of the vast army of visitors to the views of the city, surrounding country, and river. So that National Capital. How much better the. hardships and

U.S. ARMY Military CARISLE Pressboard Pamphlet Binder Gaylord Bros. Makars Syracuse, N Y.■ Pat. Jan 21 1908

a person following the guide of this book and the maps, may DEFENSES NEAR ALEXANDRIA. sec at the same time both the best of the country and the FL Lyon, the most important work south of Hunting best preserved of these old forts. Creek and Cameron Run, was built in 1R61 under direction People who live in 'Washington should shape their of Major Newton of the Engineers. The fort is on the country rambles and drives to pass near these forts. Leave extreme edge of the plateau, and commands the main roads your carriage or bicycle and by going usually blit a short in the valley. The parapet and fort are still in good con­ distance from the highway you will find a view from the dition and the outline of the boom-proofs and magazines, old forts which far surpasses what you could sec from the and the emplacements for the guns can be clearly traced. highway. If you are unacquainted with the history of the The old military road which extended up to the fort has fort ask some of the people living near by to tell you what been extended through the fort to shorten the highway. they know. There will be found people near every fort Forts Weed, Farnsworth and O’Rouke were built south of who have lived there for years. Such people we have FL Lyon, and Ft. Willard was built farther to the southeast found arc nearly always very hospitable and glad to tell a to command the road along the river. These forts and stranger many interesting anecdotes of the eventful years some of the rifle trenches are to be plainly seen. of war. Which side they were on makes no difference with The best way to reach these forts is via Hunting Creek the politeness of these people. In getting the data for the Bridge. The two block houses which were located in the map we were in every case but one (near Ft. Ellsworth) valley on cither side of Cameron Run have entirely disap­ treated magnificently by the people in the vicinity. peared, of course. Battery Rogers is still to be traced at the In examining the map one thing should bc observed. The south end of Alexandria. roads on the map are the present roads and are in many The principal forts to the west and northwest of Alexan­ cases quite changed from the old war time roads. In dria are Forts Ellsworth, Williams, Worth, nnd Ward. Fort some cases roads run near or through forts where during Ellsworth, on Shuter Hill, was commenced on May 24, 18G1, the war there was no road for some distance. Some of the directlyafter the killing of Colonel Ellsworth. This was one old military roads, built at the timo as temporary roads, of the three forts first built. This fort and the rifle trenches have since become regular highways. near it are in a good state of preservation. In this article where a fort is stated to be in good con- Northeast of this road passes the Alexandria and Lees­ dition it is not to be understood that the powder magazines burg Turnpike, surveyed and built by (then) Lieutenant and bomb-proofs are still intact unless so stated. The con­ Washington for General Braddock when he marched to Fort struction of these were such that they could not last for Duquene (now Pittsburg) during the French and Indian many years, being generally log structures covered with earth. In most cases, however, the outline of all such Fort Williams is in a fair state of preservation. The structures can bo clearly seen. The old wells are in a few brick magazine under ground is still intact, and the words cases in a dangerous condition, and the visitor should be “ Entrance to Magnzine” are still to be seen over the wooden careful where he walks while inside the forts. door casing. Pressboard Pamphlet 3 0839 0054388 8 Binder Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y. PAT. JAN 29 1908

Fort Worth in part remains. The fine country house of Colonel Herbert occupies the centre of the fort. Here is reached. Nothing remains of the fort except the well. A also a large powder magazine, entered from the stable. series of trenches turns to the eastward and commands the From these forte are fine views of the valley through which depression between Forts Berry and Richardson. flows Cameron Run, and in which are the railroads and the Fort Richardson is about 1,100 yards north-north-east Little River Turnpike. These forts arc reached via this of Fort Berry. It is on the eastern end of a command­ turnpike. From Fort Worth a walk of a mile through the ing ridge. It is in good condition and has a good command beautiful Fairfax Seminary grounds to the old Leesburg in every direction. The view from this fort is exception­ Road, and thence westerly along that road, or else along ally fine, the city, river, and other forts being clearly seen. the rifle trenches and batteries, which extend north from Fort Scott is somewhat over a mile and a quarter Fort Worth, and are for the most part in good condition, from Fort Richardson. This is best reached via the rail­ will bring a person to Fort Ward, located directly on the road from Four Mile Run or Waterloo Stations. This fort north side of the Leesburg Road. This fort is in excellent has a good command of the river, the lower part of the condition. Its elevation ta 260 feet above tide and it com­ valley of Four Mile Run, and is in good condition. mands the’ valley of Hunting Creek. From here is a fine Forte Runyon and Jackson are best reached by the view of Washington, the river, and the valley of Four-Mile railroad. A part only of Fort Runyon can still bc Run. seen. These works, being on low ground, were of little Following the line of rifle trench which extends down use except as tete-de-ponts. the hill northwardly from Fort Ward and is in good con­ THE ARLINGTON LINE OF DEFENSE. dition as far as the road, Fort Garesche will bc found about This includes the defenses between the Long and Aque­ four hundred yards a little cast of north from the end of duct Bridges. Fort Albany is nearly intact, the road now the rille trench at the road. Tho block house which stood cutting off the eastern side. It is best reached by road southeast of Fort Garesche has disappeared. Fort Reynolds (or Blenker) is about three hundred from Runyon Station. Forts Craig, Tillingbast and McPherson can bc visited yards to the cast. The profile of this fort is as sharp conveniently from Arlington by carriage or by short walks. ns when it was occupied, the slopes having been perfectly . Fort McPherson was one of tho last forts commenced and preserved by a thick growth of blue grass and bushes. was not finished. Fort Tillingbast, though in part occupied Crossing Four Mile Run at Morven Heights, Nauck’s by a house, barn, eta, is in good condition on the west side. Station, (where trains stop on signal) and following the The slopes, emplacements for guns, etc., are very distinct, railroad west about a half mile, a climb unto the bill will Forts Whipple, Cass and Corcoran have been leveled. reach Fort Barnard and the rifle-trenches thereabouts in The Cavalry post, Fort Myer, occupies the site of old Fort good condition. This fort commands the railrand and Whipple. Fort Woodbury is now well cut up by the streets Four Mile Run to the northwest. Following the line of of Fort Myer Heights. Forts Morton, Strong, C. F. Smith, rifle trenches northwardly about seven hundred yards to Bennett and Haggerty are still to be seen. These forts are the Corbett farm the site of Fort Berry, near the house, is best reached by carriage or a short walk from the bridge. '9

U.S. ARMY MIIJT'r" CARLISl F n Army Military I? Hist Inst 3 0839 Pressboard Pamphlet 0054388 8 Binder Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y. PAT. JAN 21 1908

the DEFENSES AT CHAIN BRIDGE. including the emplacement for the 100 pound Parrott rifle. These consist of Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen, many The Tort and battery at the north end will soon be entirely batteries and rille trenches. The forts and many of the graded down. The view in every direction is very fine, the trenches are in good condition. The views from the para­ elevation being over 400 feet above tide. From Fort Reno pets of these forts are very fine. The best means of reach­ the line ran irregularly east, but is now nearly obliterated. ing them is by carriage, via the Canal Road, crossing Chain A short section of rifle trench can be seen back of the Bridge. A line road house has been opened on top of the school house east of Fort Reno. Connecticut Avenue Ex­ ridge above Chain Bridge, from the tower and verandas of tended, cutaway Battery Rossell. Fort Kearney is entirely which a grand view may be had. gone. From the site of Fort Kearney the line extends to the northeast and is in good condition for the most part, and the line of trench almost continuous. THE NORTHERN LINE OF DEFENSE. Fort De Russy, in good condition, is just within the new The most westerly fort of the line is Port Sumner, built Rock Creek Park north of the Military road. It occupies a by connecting three small Ports, (Franklin, Alexander and very commanding site looking in all directions except south Ripley). The fort commanded the river, canal, conduit west. The fort is a few steps only from the highway and road and the Potomac valley. It is still in fair condition. none who drive along the road should fail to get the view Battery Alexander, on a spur 300 yards to the south can of the new park from the parapet. Following the Military still be seen. This battery commanded the road for a dis­ road eastwardly from Fort De Russy, occasional batteries tance of several miles. Port Sumner and Battery Alexander and rifle trenches can be found a short distance from the may be conveniently reached via the Glen Echo electric road on both sides ns shown on the map. Most of them are road, or by carriage, via conduit road. still in good condition. Prom Port Sumner the line extends almost directly east. Following the Military road about three-quarters of a mile For two miles but little rille trench, few batteries, and one cast of Rock creek, the Brightwood road is reached. A fort are left in good condition, owing to the cultivation of short walk to the north reaches Fort Stevens. This is just this fine stretch of country. Fort Bayard is of elliptical beyond the terminus of the Brightwood horse-car road. The shape. It is best reached from Tennallytown, by a walk of west and part of the north side of the old fort are visible. three quarters of a mile down the River road. Fort Gaines The old brick church, which stood in the fort and was used is near Massachusetts Avenue Extended, and the Longboro as a magazine, has been replaced by a stone church. This road east of University Heights, a half mile from the Tenna fort is the only one of the immediate line around the city lytown electric road. There are batteries to be found on which came into actual engagement during the war. In several commanding spurs near the river above the conduit July, 1864, Early found this fort and the line of defenses too road as shown on the map. strong for him, and ho turned back. Some of the buildings Fort Reno, or Pennsylvania, occupies a commanding ridge and fences here bear evidence of quite a lively time. The just, north of Tennallytown. Most of it is still to be seen, men who were killed in the skirmish in front of Fort Stevens

i Pressboard Pamphlet 3 0837 0054388 8 Binder Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y. PAT. JAN 21 1908

visit, however, ns the views from some are exceptionally are most of them buried in the cemetery a short distance to fine. These forts were designed to protect the Arsenal, the north of the fort. To the eastward of Fort Stevens a Navy Yard, and the Capitol from cannonade and to hold part of the ride trench may be found in good condition. the approaches to the bridges from any sudden dashes of Fort Slocum was on the west side of the left fork of the cavalry. Rock Creek Church road, not far northwest from Stott Sta­ Of the tete-de-pont at Benning’s Bridge only a small tion of the Metropolitan Branch of the B. & O. R. R. The fort has entirely disappeared, except the well. A short portion on the north of the road remains. Just beyond the Anacostia Road and to the left of Benning’s Road is stretch of rifle trench and a battery may be found west of Fort Mahan, still well preserved. It was a very important the site of the fort point, commanding all approaches to the bridge. Across Fort Totten, together with its outlying rifle trenches, the. road, south of Fort Mahan, is a small circular work may be found in very good condition on the Bales road. in good condition. The view is very line from the parapet. Fort Totten is a East from this, about five hundred yards, is Fort Shaplin short distance south from Stott Station. Rifle trenches and densely overgrown with bushes and briers. The parapets batteries may be found almost continuously south of Fort are well preserved except on the western extremity. Totten to Fort Slemmer. This small fort, in fine condition, On the hill to the right of Benning's Rond about seven is a shortdistance north of the Catholic University. South­ hundred yards Routh, beyond Central avenue, is Fort east of Fort Slemmer the trenches are disappearing. Sedgwick, in good condition. In Brookland are round traces of Fort Bunker Hill. The Along the Ridge Road, south from here, may be found tower, from which is an exceptionally fine view, stands in in good condition Forts Meigs, Dupont and Davis. From the old fort. Fort Dupont may bo had a uf ll view of Washington and A half mile southeast of here, at the junction of Sargent the valleys of the upper Potomac. and Bunker Hill roads, will bo found Fort Saratoga, in fair Continuing on the same road to the southwest, the sites condition. of Forte Baker, Wagner and Rickets are passed. Fort Thayer, cast of here, lias disappeared. On the hill to the southeast of Anacostia and west of the Crossing the railroad near Avalon, the rifle trench may be village of Garfield is Fort Stanton. This fort is in good found which leads to the site of old Fort Lincoln. This is entirely gone, and tho U. S. Reform School occupies the condition and the magazine well preserved. The view from here is very fine. place. Battery Jameson is at the northeast of the heights around old Fort Lincoln. It may still be seen. The views Fort Snyder was near St. Elizabeth Asylum but has from the Reform School and Battery Jameson are good. disappeared. A part of Fort Carroll remains west of the road. DEFENSES EAST OF THE POTOMAC. A small part of Fort Oreble, only, remains. At the foot Perhaps of less interest than the other parts of the de­ of the slope, opposite this fort, is the Bellview Magazine. fenses of the city are the works lying to the east of the The best manner to visit all'these forts is by carriage, Eastern Branch and the Potomac. They are still worth a crossing the Benning’s Bridge and returning via Anacostia. This drive is full of interest on account of the varying Handsome Residences—Continued. views of the city, country and river. The livery whose British Legation,...... Conn. Ave. and N. card appears in this book is well equipped for such a trip Chinese Legation,...... Dupont Circle. —as well as for the trips by carriage to the Arlington and Corean Legation,...... Thirteenth St. and Iowa Circle. northern lines of defense. Italian Legation,...... 1015 Conn. Ave. Fort Foote is not strictly within the immediate de­ Spanish Legation,...... 1400 Mass. Ave. fenses of Washington though it commanded the river Russian Legation,...... 1705 K St. below Alexandria. It is still in fair condition including German Legation,...... 734 Fifteenth St. the barracks, etc. Mexican Legation...... 1413 1 St. Senator Stanford,...... 1701 K St. RESIDENCES. Senator Sawyer,...... 1701 Conn. Ave. The finest residences of the city are in the northwest Senator Sherman,...... 1319 K St. section. Nearly every street contains many handsome Bancroft, the historian, (deceased)...... 1623 II St. houses, but on Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hamp­ Corcoran Mansion,...... 1611 II St. shire and Rhode Island avenues., K street, I street, (west of Mrs. John A. Logan,....13th and Clifton, (above Boundary). Fourteenth), Sixteenth street, Dupont, Iowa and Scott A. L. Barber,...... Fourteenth St., just beyond Boundary. Circles are to be found the greatest number. L. Z. Leiter,...... North side Dupont Circle. Georgetown also has many fine old mansions with spacious grounds. A visit to Washington is not complete without a trip by ADVERTISEMENTS. The advertisements which appear in these pages are in- carriage through the fine residence quarter. tended as a useful adjunct to the guide. Ail of these cards will be found to represent good concerns to deal with while HANDSOME RESIDENCES OCCUPIED BY MEN in the city. No other advertisements have been allowed in this book. IN OFFICIAL LIFE AND OTHERS. In dealing with these firms, mention where you saw their card. Vice-President Morton,...... 1500 Rhode Island Ave. Ex-Sec. of State, James <1. Blaine,...... 17 Madison Place. Sec. of Treasury, Charles Foster,...... 1122 Vermont Ave. WAR VIEWS BY BRADY. See. of War, Stephen B. Elkins,...... 1135 K St. Sec. of Agriculture, J. M. Rusk,...... 1330 Mass. Ave. Sec. of Interior, John W. Noble,...... 1311 K St. Cor. Penn. Ave. and 13 th St. Post Master General, John Wanamaker,...... 1731 St. Photographs of all the Great Commanders of the War front the Original Plates taken by me in the field and camp. Attorney General, Wm. H. H. Miller,...... 1308 Mass. Ave. Photographing large groups a Specialtv. 34

U.S. Army Military Carlisle Appendix Q

“The Fort Drive,” In U.S., Congress, Senate. The Improvement of the Park System of the District of Columbia; 57th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Report No, 166. Edited by Charles Moore. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902, 111-12. PARK SYSTEM OF THE DISTRICT DE COLUMBIA.

of the broad views to be had in the District. Forts Mahan, Chaplin, Sedgwick, Du Font, Davis, Baker, Stanton, Greble. and Battery Rick­ etts can be linked together readily by means of the permanent system of highways with a few modifications and some widening into a drive comparable in beauty with that along the Potomac Palisades, but THE FORT DRIVE. utterly different in character. In connection with this hill-crest circuit, starting from the north­ eastern end of Anacostia Park and returning to the shore of the Poto- HILE for the nutsons already discussed no systematic series mac at the southern corner of the District, it is important to secure of minor reservations has been selected for the outlying dis­ four other areas of considerable extent in the eastern section. W tricts, it is necessary to mention the chain of forts which occupied the higher summits in the northern part of the central section, extending from Fort Stevens, near Rock Creek Park, to Fort Thayer, near the Reform School. The views from these point.’ arc impressive in proportion to their commanding military positions and they are well worth acquirement as future local parks, in addition to any claim their historical and military interest may afford. The boundaries, shown upon map No. D-288, arc fixed mainly with respect to the character of the views from each fort and the possibility and impor­ tance. of keeping them permanently open. The areas of the proposed parks are therefore somewhat adjustable, depending upon the atti­ tude of the landowners. To connect the series advantage is taken of the street laid out for the purpose in the highway plans, but it should be increased to a more liberal width than now provided, which is only 90 The Eastern Forts. . ‘ . feet, between houses, the same as H street in the city. With the forts indicated on the map—Stevens, Totten, Slemmer, Bunker Hill, and Thayer—and with such other small parks and view points a’ may bc selected later, a northern park circuit of great interest, would thus bc formed, having views oil into the country in contrast with the principal inner circuit of larger parks, presenting views chiefly south toward the city. In the section east of the Anacostia a similar chain of hilltop forts marks the points of most, commanding view. With the. Anacostia and the Potomac below and the city of Washington spread out beyond and the hills of Virginia in the distance, these are the most beautiful

1 Given in Appendix I p 167. S. Kcp. if/* — I* 111 Appendix R

Authorization to purchase land for Forts Davis and Dupont parks through condemnation. United States Statutes at Large. Containing the Laws and Concurrent Resolutions . . . and Reorganization Plans. Amendments to the Constitution and Proclamations. 1789-. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1918, Volume 37, Part 1, 1911-13, pages 178-79. 178 SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sesb. II. Ch. 182. 1912.

to Montrose Park, and to condemn any private interest in the land in Lovers’ Lane lying between land taxed as parcels thirty-nine-ten and thirty-nine-eleven, and Montrose Park from T Street southerly to R Street northwest, as shown on plans filed in the office of the engi­ Proviso. neer commissioner of the District of Columbia: Provided, however, That Damages to be as- cessed as benefits. the entire amount found to be due and awarded by the jury in Baid proceedings as damages for and in respect of the land to be condemned, as provided for herein plus the costs and expenses of the proceedings hereunder shall be assessed by the jury as benefits. Appropriation tor expenses, etc. There is hereby appropriated entirely out of the revenues of the District of Columbia a sum sufficient to pay the cost and expenses of Awards. the condemnation proceedings taken pursuant hereto, ana for the payment of the amounts awarded as damages, the amounts assessed as benefits, when collected, to be repaid to the District of Columbia Proviso. Jurisdiction over to the credit of the revenues of said District: Provided further, That roadway transferred to District. the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, is hereby directed, to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia for highway purposes so much of Montrose Park as they may deem necessary for the connecting highway herein authorized.

Fort Davis and Fort Dupont parks. FORT DAVIS AND FORT DUPONT PARKS, AND SO FORTH.

New highway plan southeast directed. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby author­ ized and directed to prepare a highway plan to change the location and width of Alabama Avenue southeast, between Pennsylvania Avenue and Hillside Road, and to make such changes in the location Provisos.. of intersecting streets as may be necessary to provide proper con­ Condemning land nection with the new location of Alabama Avenue: Provided further, for the parks. Vol. 84, p. 161. That under and in accordance with the provisions of subchapter one of chapter fifteen of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized ana directed to institute in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia a proceeding in rem to condemn the land that may be necessary to preserve the sites of Fort Davis and Fort Dupont for park purposes, and to provide a connecting highway between these sites by widen­ ing Alabama Avenue to one hundred and fifty feet, comprising in all approximately forty-one and twenty-five one-hundredths acres of land, as shown on plans filed in the office of the Engineer Commissioner of Appropriation for expenses. the District of Columbia. There is hereby appropriated an amount sufficient to pay the necessary costs and expenses of said condem­ nation proceedings taken pursuant hereto, and for the payment of Damages assessed as benefits. amounts awarded as damages: Provided, however, That of the amount found to be due and awarded by the jury in said proceedings as dam­ ages for and in respect of the land to be taken in the condemnation proceedings herein authorized plus the costs and expenses of the pro­ ceedings, not less than one-third and all in excess of twenty-one thou­ Deposit sand three hundred and thirty-four dollars shall be assessed by the jury as benefits, which when collected shall be covered into the Treas­ ury of the United States to the credit of the revenues of tho District of Columbia and the United States in equal parts. Condemnations for street extensions. Hereafter the United States shall not Dear any part of the cost of Cost assessed as ben­ efits. the acquisition of land for street extensions, but when-the condemna­ tion of any land for such purposes is authorized by law the total cost of the land and the expenses of the condemnation proceedings shall be One-half of coat of parkways assessed as assessed as benefits; in any case where land is condemned for a park­ benefits. way, including a street or streets, where such parkway is of consider­ able length with relation to its width, not less than one-half of the cost of the land including the same fraction of the expenses of the One-third of cost of parks assessed as ben­ condemnation proceedings shall be assessed as benefits; and in any efits. case where land is condemned for a public park, not less than one- SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 182. 1912. 179 third of the cost of the land including the same fraction of the expenses of the condemnation proceedings shall be assessed as benefits. Parks authorised, to The public parks authorized and established by this Act shall be under Chief of En- become a part of the park system of the District of Columbia and gineers. be under the control of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. WATER DEPARTMENT. Water Department.

Payable from water The following sums are hereby appropriated to carry on the opera­ revenues. tions of the water department, to be paid wholly from its revenues namely: Revenue and in- For revenue and inspection branch: Water registrar, who shall also spectlon branch. perform the duties of chief clerk, two thousand lour hundred dollars; clerks—one at one thousand five hundred dollars, one at one thou­ sand two hundred dollars, two at one thousand dollars each; index clerk, one thousand four hundred dollars; three meter computers, at one thousand dollars each; chief inspector, one thousand dollars; meter clerk, one thousand dollars; tap clerk, one thousand dollars; inspectors—eight at nine hundred dollars each; eleven at eight hun­ dred dollars each; messenger, six hundred dollars. Distribution branch. For distribution branch: Superintendent, three thousand three hundred dollars; draftsman, one thousand six hundred dollars; fore­ man, one thousand five hundred dollars; clerks—one at one thousand five hundred dollars; one at one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars; four at one thousand two hundred dollars each; one at one thousand dollars; one at nine hundred dollars; time keeper, nine hundred dollars; assistant foreman, nine hundred dollars; three steam engineers, at one thousand one hundred dollars each; assistant engineers—one at two thousand four hundred dollars; ono at one thousand five hundred dollars; leveler, one thousand two hundred dollars; two rodmen, at nine hundred dollars each; two chainmen, at six hundred and seventy-five dollars each; draftsman, one thousand and fifty dollars; storekeeper, one thousand dollars; assistant store­ keeper, seven hundred and fifty dollars; assistant foremen—one at one thousand two hundred and seventy-five dollars; one at ono thousand two hundred dollars; one at one thousand one hundred and twenty- five dollars; chief steam engineer, one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars; three assistant steam engineers, at eight hundred and seventy-five dollars each; four oilers, at six hundred and ton dollars each; three firemen, at eight hundred and seventy-five dollars each; inspector, one thousand two hundred dollars; janitor, nine hundred dollars; watchmen—one at eight hundred and seventy-five dollars; one at seven hundred dollars; ono at six hundred and ten dollars; one driver, seven hundred dollars; two messengers, at five hundred and forty dollars each; driver, six hundred and thirty dollars; chief inspec­ tor of valves, one thousand four hundred dollars; in all, eighty-four thousand three hundred and thirty-five dollars. For contingent expenses, including books, blanks, stationery, Contingent expenses. printing, postage, damages, purchase of technical reference books and periodicals not to exceed seventy-five dollars, and other necessary items, three thousand five hundred dollars. Operating expenses. For fuel, repairs to boilers, machinery, and pumping stations, pipe distribution to high and low service, material for high and low service, including public hydrants and fire plugs, and labor in repairing, replacing, raising, and lowering mains, laying new mains and connec­ tions, and erecting and repairing fire plugs, maintenance of motor trucks, horses, wagons, carts, and harness necessary for the proper execution of this work, and including a sum not exceeding eight hundred dollars for the purchase and use of bicycles by inspectors of the water department, thirty-seven thousand dollars. Appendix S

Colonel W.W. Hart to Brigadier General William M. Black, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, June 12, 1917, discussing the proposed route of Fort Drive. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. June 12, 1917

General:

1. The plan of the Park Commission of 1901 established two routes con­ necting the Anacostia Water Park with Rock Creek Park.

2. The northerly one was to begin on the southerly line of the Reform School, and connect these two extremes by way of Fort Thayer, Fort Bunker Hill, Fort Slemmer, Fort Totten and Fort Stevens. There was ample justifica- tion for the inclusion of these forts because of their historical value, their command of extensive views, and. the fact that they would became valuable neighborhood parks when the District was fully built up.

3. The route between Rhode Island Avenue and Fort Bunker Hill was to be almost wholly over streets laid down on the highway plan, but not at that time built upon; that portion between Bladensburg Road and Rhode Island Avenue, including Fort Totten, was to be through unoccupied territory which was not then held at a large value; between Fort Bunker Hill and Rock Creek Park there were remains of three of the old Civil War forts. About one-half of this part of the route was to be along existing highways that were to be widened.

4. Upon the site of Fort Thayer, rectangular blocks have been established and built upon so that there is no longer any reason for carrying the route to include this particular site.

5. Fort Bunker Hill is practically in the same class, although it might be rescued if thought desirable.

6. Fort Slemmer is in possession of the Catholic University.

7. Fort Totten is not yet lost, but Fort Stevens would be difficult to save in its entirety on account of the encroachment of houses.

8. The greater part of this route has become difficult, if not in^jossible, because of the construction of narrow and steep streets with shallow lots.

9. The southerly route which was to connect Mt. Hamilton with Rock Creek Park by way of the Patterson Tract, Soldiers Home, the Tuberculosis Hospital grounds, and Piney-Branch, has been complicated by the establishment of the switching yards north of Union Station.

10. That portion of this route which was to connect Soldiers Home with the Tuberculosis Hospital grounds, has been rendered difficult by the erection of many small houses along Varnum Street, and while a narrow way has been pur­ chased in Piney Branch valley, west of Massachusetts Avenue, no provision has been made for acquiring the valley from the latter avenue to the grounds of the Tuberculosis Hospital. These routes, so essential to the proper flow of traffic in the future, were entirely lost sight of in the revision of the highway plan, and in the road development during the last seventeen years, a new study of them in connection with a new highway plan is rendered very necessary. There are in the area in question between Anacostia Park and Rock Creek Park the following old roads: Queen's Chapel Road, Bunker Hill Road, Sargent Hill Road, Harewood Road, Riggs Road, Shepherd Road, Blair Road, Piney Branch Road, Bated Road, Military Road, Spring Road, Sligo Road, Central Avenue and Hickey Road.

11. A careful study of these old roads will show sound local reasons for preserving them; also they offer a ready means of securing cross-country connections at a minimum expense, only a comparatively small amount of land being required to obtain the proper width and to connect more smoothly at such’ points as require adjustment. On the westerly side of Rock Creek Park a similar need for boulevard connections will cane into existence when the District is more fully populated. Some of the routes depicted on the old parkway plan have now become difficult, but there are several roads in this region which should be seriously considered for preservation. They are: Klingle Ford Road, Rock Creek Ford Road, Broad Branch Road, Grant Road, Pierce's Mill Road, Military Road, Woodley Road, Murdock Hill Road, River Road, Tunlaw Road, Little Falls Road, Chain Bridge Road, Ridge Road, New Cut Road, Foxall Road, Georgetown and Rockville Roads, Conduit Road, Belt Road, Reservoir Street, and Canal Road.

12. There is a more rugged topography on the westerly side of Rock Creek Park than, occurs in the region first mentioned, and the situation calls for more curvilinear roads to take the best advantage of the natural conditions.

13. On the eastern side of the Anacostia River there are a large number of old roads, some of which were so obviously well placed that they were used in the highway plan, but there should be serious, consideration given to preserv­ ing same of the old Civil. War forts for there are magnificent panoramic views of the river and city to be had fran some of them.

14. The terrace-like formation between the flat land along the Anacostia River and the upland plateau is quite steep, and for the most part adapted to winding roads rather than a rectangular street system.

15. The present highway plan could be restudied here to great advantage and so adapted to the topography as to preserve some fine wooded slopes to the use of lot owners or for public reservations.

16. A careful comparison of the District highway plan with the topography shows a lamentable lack of imagination in its adaptability to existing condi­ tions when one once gets outside of the city. While orderliness and conven­ ience of plan are shown in the old city, a haphazard and unlovely street plan has grown up in the outlying districts. This is due,' in part, to the practice of attempting to adjust the highway plan to the plans of. independent and scattered land companies whose owners were, in many, cases, more forehanded in developing their land than was the District in providing a consistent and well-studied, scheme that would take advantage of the existence of the old highway routes and the natural conditions of topography. In many cases, these old highway routes will be found to be along lines of least physical resistance, and I am strongly of the opinion that such old routes can be incorporated in the highway plan to a greater extent than here tofore' ’ c ont empxa* would serve admirably as cross-country park connections when properly widened, and in seme cases supply the same general functions as do the more important avenues in the old city.

17. The entire subject of a proper highway plan should be taken up in a vigorous way so as to include proper parkway connections and to provide a more feasible solution of the problem at difficult situations along some of the existing park boundaries. A successful solution of the problem from an engineering point of view, at the same time giving recog­ nition to the natural beauties of the undeveloped country, would create conditions that would offer a standing invitation to people of means to establish homes in this vicinity; such homes as are built on similar rugged land in Roland Park, Baltimore, Md., and in Lenox, Nass., and such as are indicated as possible by those of Dr. Richardson on Military Road, and Mr. Parmelee and Senator Brady near Cathedral Avenue. These types ' of homes should predominate in the entire region west of Rock Creek.

18. The continuance of narrow straight street construction at points where a curvilinear system is indicated is avoidably expensive and invites the construction of small box-houses on narrow blocks in regions, not . . physically adapted to them. This is not a policy that will preserve the natural beauties of the countryside or invite the kind of people.-.who usually take advantage of beautiful natural conditions, when choosing a location for a permanent residence. . . .

19. There are portions of the District that surpass in scenic grandeur, and if this city is to attract the class of people who maintain large, and beautiful domestic establishments, a city plan must not be adopted that will tend to destroy those natural conditions. One can hardly imagine the . beautiful suburbs, of Boston had that city extended the gridiron, street plan - indiscriminately to all conditions of topography. ’ . .. .. ■

2 20. It is therefore recommended: .

1. That the street and topographical conditions as now existing be surveyed and mapped. . 2. That an expert, familiar with the proceedings of the city planning conference, be consulted, so that the most up-to-date city planning practice may be available. 3. That the needs of the future in matters of outlying . \. parks, parkways and public playgrounds be included in the study.

Respectfully,

(sgd.) WM. W. HARTS, Colonel, U.S.Army, Brig.Gen. William M. Black, Officer in Charge. Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, War Department, .Washington, D.C.

JGL/HAL I*

V v- Appendix T

Colonel Clarence S. Ridley, Officer in Charge of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, July 30, 1919. Record Group 77, Entry 103, General Correspondence, 1894-1923, #124636. WAR DEPARTMENT Corps of Engineers

OFFICE OF Public Buildings and Grounds

LEMON BUILDING

1729 New York avenue NW. WASHINGTON. D. C.

July 30, 1919.

From: The Officer in Charge

To: The Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army

Subject: Proposed Bill for Parkway connecting Old Civil War Forts, District of Columbia.

1. In looking forward to the future development of Washington, and es­ pecially the Federal Park System, it appears that the time is ripe for secur­ ing necessary land for parks in the outlying parts of the District, that is, in the portions which are not now built up but which inevitably, in the natu­ ral growth of the city, will be entirely covered. In order to secure a proper layout and design, and for economy, the system of parks in these out­ lying districts should be decided upon at this time and the necessary land- acquired before it is too late.

2. It is believed however, that the best way to secure the purpose de­ sired is to have the question considered by Congress as a series of definite projects, rather than to attempt to make a wholesale acquirement at one time. One project which is considered of highest importance is to secure the land for a circumferential parkway connecting the proposed Anacostia Park with the Potomac River both south and north of the present built up portion of Washing­ ton, and entirely surrounding the present city. The old Civil War Forts sur­ rounding the city are not only points of interest, but also include points from which some of the best views of the city can be obtained. A parkway con­ necting these points would form a most beautiful adjunct to the park system of the District, and in the future would form a most useful cross-town con­ nection. While it may be argued that such a cross-town connection is not now necessary, there can be no question that it will be a necessity in the future growth of the city, and that the present time is none too soon to inaugurate the purchase of the necessary land. While the growth of the city may not solidly fill this area for many years yet the growth along certain lines may block it in so many places as to seriously effect its future. Moreover, if this project is adopted the land owners may be certain as to the intentions of the Government, and the character of the development will be favorably ef­ fected. It is believed that the experience of other cities will show that the wise tiling to do here is to begin at once. For example, Baltimore is doing this very thing. '

3. There is enclosed, herewith a copy of a Bill designed, to carry the a­ bove into effect. If approved, it is suggested that the matter be referred to Commissioners of the District of Columbia for their views. csr/ewm C. S. Ridley. 1 incl. Colonel, U.S. Army '124636 1st Ind.. GBP/mms Office, C. of E., September 30, 1919 - To the Officer in Charge, Public Buildings and Grounds, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Returned inviting attention to the report of Colonel Harts, dated June 12, 1917, relative to parkway connections between Rock Creek and Anacostia parks, (12916/49, herewith), in which he discusses a portion of the route for the parkway described in the draft (E. D. 124636/1) of proposed bill, herewith. Report and recommendation are requested on the question of presenting to the District Commissioners, and also to the Highway Commission, for consideration in connection with the proposed bill, his suggestion that a comprehensive study of the highway system be undertaken.

By command of the Chief of Engineers;

G. B. Pillsbury Colonel of Engineers. 7 Inclos., viz; 124636/1 - Draft of bill; 12916/46 - Let. of Comm, of Fine Arts; ” /49 - Report of Col. Harts; " /55 - Let. of Board, of Comm., D. C.; " / 56 — ” " ” ” ” " /57 - Copy of E. D. let. to Comm. of Fine Arts; ” /58. - Map.

307/2 2nd Ind csR/rb

Office P. B. & Grds. Oct. 8th, 1919 - To the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army.

1. Returned.

2. This office is still of the opinion that a restudy of the highway system is necessary and believes that the preparation of a plan for the Forts Driveway preposed in the enclosed bill will develop overwhelming evidence to that effect.

3. The thing that is pressing, however, and ono which is considered of paramount Importance to the future development of the city and more particularly its park system is to restudy the parkway system as proposed by the Park Commission in 1902 with a view to adapting it to present conditions brought about by the growth of the city since the plan was made and then to incorporate the result, in accordance with law, in the Highway Plan of the District of Columbia. While the parkways proposed by the Park Commission were carefully laid out on the ground at the time and conformed to conditions existing then, no one believed that those lo­ cations would be followed today if the same commission were making the restudy. They could however, been followed today it is believed, if the Highway plan had been revised to include them at the time they were proposed. The principle which they established remains the same and the only thing required is their relocation to boot fit existing conditions, esthetic and economic, and then to provido that the future growth of the city will not make their realization impossible.

4. It is recommended that the Hi$r.-ay Commission now proceed to restudy and revise all of the highway system so far as it relates to and affects the system of circumferential parkways proposed by the Park Commission. This in­ volves first a careful restudy on the ground and shifting where necessary of the parkway locations. With a plan which is over changing due to building operations and development of new street systems nothing can 'be accomplished, and the ulti­ mate result would bo that this parkway system which will certainly come, will have to bc compromised and fitted to a built up city instead of having the city grow up to and conform to a well considered plan.

5. It is further believed that the bill proposed herewith will be a logical and helpful step in currying out the recommendations contained in Paragraph 4. The results obtained by the Commission proposed in the bill vail bo available to the Highway Commission and would not interfere in any way with its studies of the re­ mainder of the system. The main object of the bill is to get something definite before Congress in the form of a. document with estimate and map which everyone can see and understand. It is believed that tangible results with Congress can best bo obtained in this way.

C. S. Ridley, . 7 inc. viz. Colonel, U. S. Army. (507/3) - Draft of bill (252/40| - Let. of Comm. of Fino Arts (252/50) - Report of Col. Harts (252/55) - Let. of Board of Conan., D. C. (252/56) - " " " " " " " (252/49) - Copy of E.D. lot to Comm. of Fine Arts. (252/57) - Map

See copy of W.D. letter, Oct. 20, 1919 to Hon. Louis Trownlow, 124636/2. Appendix U

October 1919 listing of forts. Record Group 42, Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, General Correspondence, 307, Public Grounds: Extension of Park System, Civil War Forts Parkway. Fort Greble Fort Sedgwick. ,

On a farm about 1500 ft. west In Woodlawn Cemetery west of of Nichols Road. Has one house Benning Road. Not available. on it. Available.

Ft. Carroll. Fort Shaplin.

Immediately adjacent to Niohols 2000 ft. west of Bowen Road Road adjoining the store of Allen opposite Central Ave. Available. & Co,, Congress Heights. Available.

Fort Wagner. Battery

Adjoining school house at junc­ 2500 ft. west of Fort Shaplin, tion of Hamilton and Walker Roads, and 000 ft. east of Anacostia Road. Good Hope. Available. Available.

Battery Ricketts. Fort Mahan.

Fort Place and Bruce Place. 500 ft.north of Benning Road; Available. 1200 ft. east of Anacostia Road. Available. Fort Stanton. Fort Lincoln. 2000 ft. west of Ricketts. Available. In the northerly corner of grounds of National Training School- Fort Baker. for Boys. U. S. Owned. .

On Bowen Road between junction Fort Thayer. with Suitland, Hamilton and Good Hope Roads. Available. Destroyed by Irving and 24th Streets. Not available. Fort Davis. Fort Saratoga. (Not available) In the northerly corner of junc­ tion of Pennsylvania Ave. and Bowen Unable to find site.. Road. . U. S. Owned. Fort Bunker Hill. Fort Dupont. Otis and 13th Streets, Brookland. About 800 ft. north of Bowen Road Available. about 1000 ft.from its junction with Ridge Road. U. S. owned. Fort Slemmer.

Fort Meigs. In the grounds of the Catholic University. Probably not available. 1200 ft. outside of the District at the junction of Bowen and Benning Fort Totten. Roads. Available. East of Bates Road near Ellison Street. Available. ’I

4 ' I Fort Slocum. Battery Vermont. West of Blair Road, opposite South of Little Falls Road, end of Sligo Road, part of it in the front yard of the Girl's' is available. Reform School, U. S. owned.

Fort_ Stevens On the west side of old Piney —Branch Road near Rittenhouse Road. Available. Port De Russey.

Junction of Military Road with

i Daniel Road.In Rock. Creek Park. U. S. owned. Battery Smeade.

Near junction of Military Road with Rock Creek'Ford Road. Probably not available on account of Improved buildings. Fort Reno.

Site occupied by reservoir and improved streets and buildings. (Tenleytown). Not available.

Fort Bayard. 400 ft. south of River Road at its junction with District Line. Available. Fort Gaines. Adjoining Massachusetts Avenue. 700 -ft. west of Nebraska Avenue. Available.

Battery Kemble. On Cambridge Road 1000 ft. south from its junction with Little Falls Road. Available.

Battery Parrott. 500 ft. west of Ridge Road midway be­ tween Little Ralls Road and Aqueduct Road. Available. Lk_v.- Forts outside of the District, remains of which are visible^

Fort Sumner. Fort Richardson

On the hills north of Rook On a farm 3000 ft. east of ' Spring,' Conduit Road, Md. Fox, Va. Available. . Available. ' Fort Berry. Fort Macy. In a small settlement west On south side of country road of Fox, va. Probably not available leading from Chain Bridge. 2000 ft. outside of the District Line, in Fort Garesche, and Fort Reynolds. Virginia. On the heights south of four Fort Ethan Allan. mile run, one mile south of Green Valley, Md. Available. On Chain, Bridge Road 2000 ft. from Chain Bridge, Va. Available. Fort Ellsworth,

Fort C. F. Smith. On Shuters Hill west of Alexandria. Available, • On the north side of road west of Colonial Heights, Va. Available. Forts Lyons, Farnsworth, Weed, O'Rouke, and Willard. ’

Fort Bennett t On the heights south of Hunt­ On Mackeys Hill 2000 ft. west ing Creek,south of Alexandria, near of Acqueduct Bridge. Available. Telegraph Road and Gravel Road. Available. • Fort Strong. Fort Buffalo. On a road 500 ft. north of high­ way leading west from Park Lane, Va. Near the highway about one Available. mile southeast of Falls Church, Va. Fort Morton. Available. At junction of two roads, 500 ft. north of highway at Aurora Heights, Va. Available. Fort McPherson. ' In Arlington Cemetery. U. ,S. Owned.

Fort Craig. . On highway between Columbia Road and Fort Myer. Fort Albany. On road at East Arlington. Available. ' i Fort Runyon.

East of highway at Arlington junction. Available• Appendix V

Judge C.D. Bundy hands in a copy of report prepared by the Secretary of the Board of Trade D.C. and himself as chairman of Committee on Parks of the Board of Trade, suggesting the acquisition for park purposes of the dismantled forts around the outskirts of the City of Washington, January 1920. Record Group 42, General Correspondence, 1907-21, 307 Public Grounds. Extension of Park System: Civil War Forts Parkway. It is now more than seventeen years since the Park

Commission, acting under the authority of the U. S. Senate, reported a comprehensive project for the development and improvement of the entire par : system of the District of Columbia, since known as the McMillan Plan. It is by no means a new plan, but on the contrary, so far as it applies to the old city, south of Florida Avenue, (formerly Boundary Street), it is a development and extension of the original plan of Washington and Jefferson, as they communicated it to L’Enfant for his guidance in 1790; and so far as it applies to the suburban portions of the District, it is an adaptation of the original plan of the topography and prospective development of the Greater Washington. The War of Seccession left a chain of dismantled forts skirting the city, on its North and East sides. They had ended their usefulness in defense of the Capital, and hence­ forth could serve no other purpose than to mark the site of an indecisive event in the greta Civil War. It was a happy though of the Park Commission that by means of a boulevard or parkway connecting them, those forts could be converted into picturesque features of the Park system of Washington; and, since they already bore historic names, they would bo welcomed by all parties as unsullied monuments yo American heroism. The two wars that have since intervened, have delayed the execution of this admirable design until now, that peace is dawning, and the streams of revonue are beginning once more to flow towards the Treasury, the time would seem to be auspicious for unlocking the vaults wherein more than $4,000,000. of District taxes lie impounded, as if for just this purpose, to wit; the purchase of park sites. If it could be restored to circulation, the fund do obtained would he ample for the purchase of the park-ways and park sites hereinafter named. The Washington Board of Trade at its meeting on the 21st day of October, of the present year, made the initial move towards the immediate accomplishment of the McMillan Plan,, by the unanimous adoption of the following resolution, TO WIT: "RESOLVED, that Congress be urged to provide for the immediate acquisition of the following tracts of land in the District for Parks and recreation purposes-, namely-. The Patterson tract containing 81.76 acres; estimated cost $429,240.00. . The Mount Hamilton tract, containing 449.35 acres; - estimated cost $240,016.50. The Pean tract containing 9.25 acres; ” estimated cost $624,637.50. The Klingle Ford tract containing 9.24 acres; estimated cost $500,000.00. 14 The tract required for the extension of Piney Branch park-way: estimated cost $500,000.00. Fort Drive, and sites of forts, from Sixteenth Street to the Anacostia River; estimated cost $740,000. Fort Drive and site of fort from Pennsylvania Avenue, youth East, to and including port Stanton, Anacostia; estimated cost $56,000.00." Since the mooting in October, the some resolution has received the unanimous approval of the Washington Chamber of Commerce; The Columbia Heights Citizens Association; The north East citizens Association ami the Mount Pleasant Citizens Association. It is believed that this is the first successful attempt, ■ i ever made to unite all the civic associations, in support , of a comprehensive and well understood effort for the accomplish- ment of the McMillan Plan. The program is a large ono, because it is national and by no means local, merely. It embraces and fairly represents the matured thought of the best minds of the nation.

It hase the hearty approval of the Commission of Fine Arts. The Engineer branch of tho War Department, (whioh, by law has exclusive jurisdiction ovex- the public parks) looks upon it as a long step forward toward, the consummation of the fixed, purpose to mako Washington tho fcost beautiful City in the world. Tn addition to the park altos alroady named, Darks for the Children’s playgrounds arc no loss important and needful. It is earnestly requested that all tho civic associations should unite in an effort to purchase all the playgrounds now in use, but not ownod or controlled by the District; • and suoh others as have boon recommended by the supervisor of playgrounds• Aussring that your association will endorso the plans of has alroady done so, wo urgflj- further that individual members of your association oi* its:proper committee, appeal to Senators and Members of Congress to support it.

('s3AIHOMV 1VNOI1VN 3H1IV O30OaOlld3M Appendix W

Memorandum from J.C.L. [J.C. Langdon?] to Major Ridley, October 2, 1920, Subject: New Park areas to be acquired . Record Group 42, General Correspondence, 1907-21, 307 Public Grounds: Extension of Park System: Civil War Forts Parkway. . REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Memorandum for Major Ridley:

3xamination of the data compiled by the Park Committee of the Board of Trade discloses two facts in connection with the Mt. Hamilton tract. One is, that they have included parcel 152/20, which contains a D. c. school and therefore was dropped out of the plan presented by the Fine Arts Commission, thus reduc­ ing the amount of money needed to $254,520.50 Instead of $264,360.50. Another is, that they have shown the area as 449.33 acres in accordance with a map in the District Surveyor's Office, dated April 20, 1920, designated as park map

No. 536, whereas the map presented to the Library Committee called for 366.66 acres which was based on the records in the Assessor's Office. Of course there would be variation from this figure according to actual survey upon ac­ quirement, but it seems to me that-some great discrepancy may arise throught their counting in the whole of tracts which lap over into the Anacostia area already acquired.

J. C. L. Estimates if one-third the total cost is to be appropriated the first year.

One-third cost of Patterson Tract------3143,080.00 """ Hamilton Tract------88,120.17

" " " Dean Tract------233,333.33 ■ y " " " Klingle Ford Tract-—------29,428.00 """ Extension Piney branch— 166,666.66

” ” " Fort Drive west of Ana- costia River. ------246,666.66 ” ” " Fort Drive east of Ana- costia------18,666.66

Total for first year $925,961.48

Estimates if one-fourth the total cost is to be appropriated the first year.

One-fourth cost of Patterson 'Tract------$107,310.00 " " " Hamilton Tract—------66,060.13

" " " Leon Tract 175,000.00

" " " Ellngle Ford Tract 22,071.00 " " " Extension Piney Branch- --125,000.00 " " " fort Drive west of Ana- cos tia ill ver------155,000.00

" " " Fort Drive east of Ana- costia River—------14,000.00

Total for first year——---- $694,441.13 Statement as to area and estimated, cost of the several tracts

proposed to be acquired for park and parkway purposes.

First,the Patterson Tract,fronting on Florida Avenue Northeast just west of Gaulladet College property, area of about 81.76 acres: Assessed valuation of land (two-thirds basis).$286,160: estimated actual value, ——------——————$429,240.00

Second, the Mount Hamilton Tract, total acreage about 366.66 acres:assessed value (two thirds basis) $160,Oil,Estimated, actual value ——------—.——————— ------— 264,360.510

Third, the Doan Tract,9 1/4 acres. Assessed value of land and ' improvements $416,425. Estimated actual value —— 700,000.00

Fourth, the Klingle Ford Tract, 9.24 acres, assessed value (two thirds basis), $58,856. Estimated actual value —— ——— ------88,284.00

Fifth, land for extension of Piney Branch parkway to the Diet* trict line,estimated actual value of land------—------— 500,000.00

Sixth, Tracts included ,in sites of the Forts from Bock Greek P Park to the Anacostia River,including land for Fort drive or park­ way, estimated actual value — ------—------—— ------—— 740,000.00

Seventh, Lands required for extension of Fort Drive and Parkway from Fort Davis to and including the site of Fort Stanton, Anacostia, estimated. actual value,------—------56,000.00

Eight, estimated cost of land for all the foregoung tracts,—$2,777,884.50 Reasons submitted, for immediate action providing for extension of the park system in the outlying portions of the District of Columbia.

1. The area of Washington site proper, bounded by Boundary Street (Florida Avenue) the Eastern Branch and the Potomac River was, through the foresight of Washington, fully planned by 1’Enfant, at a time when almost that entire area consists of forest, marshes and farm land. Yet that plan including park reservations in the form of circles, squares, etc., at fre­ quent intervals, was carried out. This area was not occupied for business and residence purposes for a period of almost one hundred years. When it was extended and occupied, its residents and the nation appreciated that the frequent open park spaces constituted the real beauty of the city of Wash­ ington and was the chief feature in establishing its reputation for beauty.

2. During this period of one hundred years, and more, absolutely no action was taken by the Federal Government to make similar provision for extension of the city beyond the old boundary. The result was that all the rest of the District of Columbia was left without plan, many portions were- subdivided by private interests, in irregular manner, and without the slight­ est provision for park spaces, large or snail.

. 3. Fortunately one large tract, the Soldier's Home grounds, was . reserved from private occupation and now constitutes a delightful parking feature, and in later years the acquisition of the Rock Creek Park and Zoological Park Tracts provided a large park area of wonderful beauty and all of immeasurable value to the city and the Nation.

4. The one thing remaining undone is the provision for smaller parks throughout the remaining portion of the District of Columbia. Finally in 1901 the Park Commission plan presented by a Senate Committee, worked out by four men preeminently: equiped for the work, was presented, this plan in­ cluding various suggestions for public park reservations in the outlying portion of the District.

5. Since this report was presented, while location of buildings and landscape improvements in the Mall have conformed strictly to it, practically no progress has been made in carrying out its suggestions in that portion of the District lying north of Florida Avenue or East of the Eastern Branch.

6. A delay of onehundred, years after Washington in formulating a plan and a delay of nineteen years after presentation of the plan before proceeding to “its execution, seems to call for action now. —2—

THE PATTERSON TRACT.

7. This tract consisting of eighty-one acres, lies at a point considerably removed from any of the small park spaces in the city proper. The lower portion of the tract, near Florida Avenue, in comparatively level, is especially adapted for playgrounds and athletic field, and contains a swimming pool, established by the military authorities, con­ structed at great cost and precisely what is needed in connection with the playgrounds. The upper portion is largely covered with original forest and has always been regarded and repeatedly recommended as an ideal tract for public park purposes.

8. MOUNT HAMILTON TRACT.

The desirability of acquiringthe Mt. Hamilton Tract for ultimate purposes as a national botanical garden and arboretum seems to have been conclusively demonstrated by the hearings held by the Joint Committee of the Library on May 21, 1920. The summit of the mountain is the next highest point in the District of Columbia. Adjoining as it does the Anacostia water park, rapidly being improved, it will afford a very great variety of soil for trees, plants, shrubs, flowers and water plants, which make it ideal for such purposes. It will afford opportunity for intro­ duction of foreign plants and trees and development of native fruits, grains, etc., of the greatest economical value.

. 9. THE DEAN TRACT.

This tract is more likely to be lost for park purposes unless promptly secured, than any of the others mentioned. It is the last of the open spaces on the brow of the hills encircling the city proper on the north. It includes nine and one-fourth acres and many of the orig­ inal forest trees, including one very remarkable oak, one of the finest trees in the District of Columbia. This tract is located at the most densely populated section of the District of Columbia. By actual count there are forty-nine apartment houses located within two blocks of this tract, most of than being large buildings. This is. the last remaining open space of any size between Dupont Circle and the end of the Mt. Pleasant car line, a distance of two miles. It is most urgently needed as a breath­ ing place for babies and young children living in this great collection of apartment houses. Its contour ms of such natural beauty that it would require a minimum expenditure for its improvement. Its owners have always/ earnestly desired that it be acquired as a park and they will dispose of it for park purposes for $700,000. This is about $1.70 per foot, and much property immediately about it has sold at $300.00 and $3.50 and $4.00 per foot. Unless this property is acquired, very promptly it will undoubtedly be disposed of and covered with apartment houses, thus adding further to the great congestion now existing at that point. It would be a calamity if this were not preserved as an open park space. — 3—

10. . THE KLINGLE FORD TRACT.

The Klingle Ford Valley is one of the branches of the Rock Creole Valley, of great natural beauty, and providing a roadway to reach Rock Creek Park of gradual descent. It should by all means be added to the present Rock Creek Park Reservation. When the Rock Creek Parkway extend­ ing from the Zoological Park to Potomac Park is completed, the Klingle Ford Roadway, will be an essential feature in connecting Rock Creek Park with this roadway, because of times of high water, preventing fording Rock Creek, and always after nightfall the roadway through Zoological Park is closed. When that occurs the Klingle Ford roadway affords the natural means of communication between Rock Creole Parkway and Rock Creek Park. The acquisition of this parkway lias been repeatedly recommended by the Commissioners and it should not be further delayed.

11. PINEY BRANCH PARKWAY.

The valley of Piney Branch, extending northeastward from the "Tiger” bridge over Piney Branch on 16th Street, is a valley of great natural beauty, and unless preserved as a park driveway, down at the natural level of the creek, this valley will gradually be filled in by dumping, absolutely destroying its beauty and resulting in made ground being covered by buildings of inferior quality. On the other hand if this valley is acquired fora parkway and a park drive established following the grade of the creek, it will connect at the Tiger Bridge with the park roadway shortly to be constructed from Rock Creek to 16th street, and then there will be established one of the most important links in the entire park system. All the residents of the section known as Saul’s addition and from there northward to the District Line, will be in position to reach the Piney Branch-parkway and thereupon can drive down Piney Branch to Rock Creek to Potomac Park and east on Potomac Park to the Mall. A continuous drive through a beautiful park will enable all the residents of that section to reach the business portion of the city by a route that will occupy but a few minutes longer than a direct drive through the crowded commercial streets of the city. When the "Fort Drive" noted below is completed, vehicles from Fort Drive may turn into Piney Branch Parkway and it will thus form one of the most important features of the general park system.

. 12 FORT DRIVES AND SITES OF FORTS.

The addition of the sites of those historic forts and a drive­ way connecting them, in accordance with the Park Commission plan of 1901, will not only preserve the historic sites but will provide a boulevard almost entirely encircling the city of Washington, located throughout nearly the whole distance of such an elevation as to overlook the city, its buildings and the two rivers. This will be one of the outstanding features in the beautification of the National Capital. The acquisition of Fort Stanton, Anacostia, and the Fort Drive connecting it with rort C —4—. ' ' • ■" ' : ' ■

Davis and Fort Dupont, already acquired is simply one link in this proposed chain of Forts connected by the Fort Boulevard.

13. As Congress rarely appropriates except upon estimate submitted by a Governmental Department, and . as there has always been hesitation on the-part of the Secretary of War to submit estimates especially relating to the District of Columbia, it seems to us that estimates for the District Park extension should, come from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. We conceive it to be a manifest duty of the Commissioners to urge upon Congress provision for development of this park system.

We therefore respectfully request:

1. That the Commissioners ask the passage of an Act such . as submitted herewith, authorizing the acquisition of the several tracts named. for park and parkway purposes.

• 2. That the Commissioners submit estimates requesting ap­ propriation in the, District Appropriation Bill or the Sundry Civil Bill of the funds, estimated to be necessary for the acqui- sition of the several tracts mentioned.

Respectfully-submitted. Appendix X

House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 8792, October 21, 1921, relating to a survey and “a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia.” 67TH CONGRESS, 1st Session. H. R. 8792.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

October 21, 1921.

Mr. Focht (by request of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the in District of Columbia and ordered to be printed. .

A BILL

To make the necessary survey and to prepare a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia.

1 Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representa-.

2 tives, of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, for the purpose of preserving the sites, of the old Civil 4 War forts which formed a part of the defenses of Washing- 5 ton and to make them accessible to the public, the Commis- 6 sioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized 7 and directed to make a survey and plan and to submit same 8 to Congress at the earliest practicable date, with recom-

9 mendation as to what lands should be. acquired to provide a 10 continuous parkway of suitable width connecting the sites 11. of the following old forts: Fort Grable, Fort Lincoln, Fort 12 Carroll, Battery Ricketts, Fort Stanton, Fort Wagner, Fort 2 1 Baker, Fort Davis (United States owned), Fort Dupont

2 (United States owned), Fort Shaplin, A Battery, Fort 3 Mahan, Fort Bunker Hill, Fort Totten, Fort Slocum, Fort 4 Stevens, Fort DeBussey, Fort Bayard, Battery Kemble,

5 Battery Vermont (United States owned), and Battery 6 Parrott, together with an estimate of the cost of such acquire- 7 ment, including the cost of such of said old forts as are not 8 now owned by the United States. In the preparation of the 9 survey and plan herein directed the commissioners shall 10 confer with the Federal Highway Commission in order that 11 upon completion of said plan the necessary steps may be 12 taken: to incorporate it into the highway system of the District

13 of Columbia, under the authority granted by the Act of

14 March 4,1915 (United States Statutes at Large, volume 37, 15 chapter 150, page 949), and shall also obtain the advice of l6 the National Commission of Fine Arts. 17. For the employment of such expert assistance and other 18 services as may be necessary, and for other necessary ex­

19 penses in connection with the work. df; the commissioners, 20 the sum of $5,000 is hereby, authorized.

REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES Appendix Y

Senate Bill, S. 1340, December 17, 1923, relating to a survey and “a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia” which passed in the Senate on December 30, 1924. (Note.—Fill In all blank lines except those 68th CONGRESS, 1340 provided tor the date and number of bill.)

1st____Session. ______

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. DEC 17 1923

Mr._Ball______—______introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia A BILL To make the necessary survey and to prepare a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, for. the purpose of preserving the sites of the old Civil

4 War forts which formed a part of the defenses of Washing- 5 ton and to make them accessible to the public, the Commis-.

6 sioners of the District of Columbia arc hereby authorized

7 and directed to make a survey and plan and to submit same 8 to Congress at the earliest practicable date, with recom-

9 mendation as to what lands should be acquired to provide a

10 continuous parkway of suitable width connecting the sites fo the following old forts: Fort Greble,-.Fort Lincoln,. Fort Carroll, Battery Ricketts, Fort Stanton. Fort Wagner; Fort

Baker, Fort Davis (United States owned), Fort Dupont . (United States owned) , Fort Shaplin, A Battery, Fort -

Mahan,_Fort Bunker Hill Fort Totten, Fort Slocum, Fort Stevens, Fort DeRussey, Fort Bayard, Battery Kemble, Buttery Vermont (United States owned), and Battery. Parrott, together with an estimate of the cost of such acquire­ ment, including, the cost of such of said old forts as are not now owned by the United States. In the preparation of the survey and plan herein directed the commissioners shall confer with the Federal Highway Commission in order that upon completion of said plan the necessary steps may be taken to incorporate it into the highway system of the District of Columbia, under the., authority granted by the Act of

March 4, 1915 (United States Statutes at Large, volume 37, chapter 150, page 949)., and shall also obtain the advice of the National Commission of Fine Arts. ’ .

For the employment of such expert assistance and other services as may be necessary, and for other necessary ex­ penses in connection with the work of the commissioners, the sum of $5,000 is hereby authorized: Appendix Z

Memorandum from Major J.F. Bell to Major Holcombe, February 21, 1924, requesting a recommendation from the Traffic Board relative to Fort Boulevard so that the Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, can give it official status. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897-1955, #155186-6. 2/20/24 CAPTAIN J.E. WOOD, Assistant to the Engineer Commissioner Recommends approval of rehome of highways forming boulevard circuit within D.C.

Office of the Engineer Commissioner February 21, 1924.

Memorandum for Major Holcombe:

Attached Isa recommendation from Captain Wood relative to

the establishment of a Port Boulevards I would like to have a recom­

mendation from the Traffic Board relative to this, so that action may

be taken by ths Board of Commissioners with a view to giving this

Fort Boulevard, if established, an official status. First of all,

we should have an official name for this boulevard, and in addition as specific recommendations as practicable should be made relative to

what instructions should ba issued to the various departments of the

District Government concerning its maintenance and improvement.

J. F. DELL, Major, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., Engineer Commissioner, D.C.

Major Holcombe FEB 23 1924 ... Appendix AA

Parkway Connecting Civil War Forts. Calendar No. 627, Senate Report No. 585. 68th Congress, 1st Session, Serial 8221, May 20, 1924, May 20 (calendar day, May 22), 1924. Calendar No. 627 68th Congress SENATE . Report 1st Session No.585

PARKWAY CONNECTING CIVIL WAR FORTS

May 20 (calendar day, May 22), 1924.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. Ball, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, sub­ mitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1340] .

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 13.40), to make the necessary survey and to prepare a plan of a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia, having considered the same, report favor­ ably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass. In support of this legislation, a letter is hereto appended addressed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.

Office Commissioners District of Columbia, Washington, December 14, 1923. Hon. L. Heisler Ball, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, United Stales Senate. Sir: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to trans­ mit herewith a copy of a bill to make the necessary survey and prepare a plan for a proposed parkway to connect the old Civil War forts in the District of Columbia, which bill they request be introduced and enacted at an early date. This matter was taken up with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and as a result the commissioners arc informed by the director that the proposed legislation is not in conflict with the financial program of the President. This legislation provides that .the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall make and submit to Congress surveys, plans, estimates, and recommenda­ tions with a view to acquisition by the Government of such sites of old Civil War forts within the District of Columbia ns arc not now publicly owned, together with a parkway of suitable width connecting the same. These forts are located generally on high ground on the outskirts of the District so that in addition to their historical interest ils the points selected for the defense of the National Capita), they and the parkway connecting them would alford magnificent views of the city, the Potomac, and the surrounding country. The fort parks would also serve particularly well as small recreation places for many areas located at some distance from the larger parks. Some of these old forts, such os Fort PARKWAY CONNECTING CIVIL WAR-FORTS

Dupont and Fort Davis, have already , been required and no doubt existing highways will, in some cases serve as the connecting parkway ,as, for example,: Alabama Avenue in the case of the forts above named and others to the south. The parkway would connect with existing parks and form a beautiful and inter­ esting adjunct to the system. It is not the intention of this legislation to author­ ize acquisition of any land at this time, but merely to authorize preparation of plans and estimates for the addition to our park system of these old forts and proper approaches to and connections between them, until such time in the future as Congress may see fit to authorize actual acquisition. The bill contemplates an appropriation of $5,000 for the employment of such expert assistance and other services as. may be necessary. and for. incidental expenses. . ... The commissioners are of the opinion that as a matter of historic interest these forts should be preserved and that access to them should be provided before private development brings about their destruction. The legislation is not only favored by the commissioners but is also favored by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army,' who- has jurisdiction over the park system of the District of Columbia. Very respectfully, Board op Commissioners District of Colombia, By Cuno H. Rudolph , President. Appendix BB

Memorandum from Captain J.E. Wood to the Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, February 20, 1924, extolling the merits of Fort Drive. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897-1955, #155186-6. February 20, 1924

Memorandum to the Engineer Commissioner: .

On the accompanying blueprint it delineated a continuous route over existing streets which make a complete circuit within the District of Columbia. She route passes most of the import public parks, all of the Civil War forts, a large part of the water front, and consistently avoids the more traveled thoroughfares. It fur­ nishes an interesting drive over thoroughfares generally godd but in a state of repair lacking uniformity. It is thirty-nine miles long. Besides its portions which lie in well-known sections it also leads through what is cooperatively little known or new territory.

The report of the McMillan Park Cao&lssion of 1902 provided a continuous system of paries and drives connecting the various Oivil War forts in the District of Columbia. as yet that plan is no nearer realisation than it was twenty-two years ago. Apparently no organized effort exists to put the proposed scheme into execution. The plan is little known to the motoring public due to its technicality and com­ prehensive nature. It can be approximated remarkably close, however, by the development of the less satisfactory sections of existing road­ ways which are in fairly good condition for travel. The general use of a new pleasure drive will be determined largely by the condition of its pavement by day and lighting by night. The Engineer Department of the District government has within its moans the direction of such a development in its routine administration. Despite the scarcity of funds available for improvements it is felt that a logical development of the plan can bo prosecuted, by the proper coordination of the various functions within the Department. It may be conceived as one belt boulevard rather than a dozen local streets in as many sections of the city.

It is recommended that the scheme of highways forming this boulevard circuit be approved as an Engineer Department project; and that ths various Divisions of the Department be instructed to give preference from maintenance appropriations to those sections of the plan not consistent with the satisfactory condition of the major portion.

J, E. Wood, Capt., Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Assistant to Engineer Commissioner.

Feb 20 1924 Engineer Commissioner Appendix CC

Capt. J.E. Wood, Assistant to Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, to Lt. Col. C.O. Sherrill, Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, March 10, 1924. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1. A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part II

Appendices OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON

March 10, 1924

Lt. Col. C.O. Sherrill, New Navy Building, 18th & B Streets, N.W., Washington, D. C. Sear Colonel Sherrill:

I am sending herewith a blueprint and photograph­ ic print of the map of Washington. On it is delineated the existing streets which form a boulevard circuit around the District of Columbia. This drive is thirty-nine miles in length, passes practically all of the Civil War forts and connects most of the important public reservations. It very closely approximates the Fort Drive recommended in the report of the McMillan Park Commission of 1902. It im­ proves the intent of the Fort Drive in that a complete cir­ cuit is made passing through Potomac Park.

All of the streets indicated are in good condi­ tion for motor travel. They form a pleasant drive no part of which is habitually congested. It is proposed that the various functions of the Engineer Department, particularly those directing paving and lighting, give special attention to the maintenance of these thoroughfares. In appreciation of the late Senator McMillan's interest in and contribution toward the park system of Wash­ ington I have recommended to the Engineer Commissioner that this circuit be known as McMillan Prive. To call it Fort Drive might jeopardize the realization of the more preten­ tious one proposed in the McMillan Commission’s report. Some months ago I sent you a large print of the proposed treatment on the north side of Washington Channel.. With this print was a black line drawing of two possible schemes-of detailed treatment. There is herewith a small print of the larger drawing in the event you may have need for it. Very sincerely yours,

J. E. Wood, Capt., Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army W*C Assistant to Engineer Commissioner.

3 Enc. Appendix DD

J.C. Langdon to Major Brown, July 31, 1925, Subject: Fort Stevens, Fort Slocum and the Fort Drive from 16th Street to North Capitol Street. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. Major Brown, Assistant Director. date: July 31, 1925.

Fort Stevens, Fort Slocum and the Fort Drive from 16th Street to North Capitol Street. Drawing No. 29

1. This study is predicated, upon the preservation of the highway plan as near as possible. The variations are as follows:

(a) Carry 13th Street around Fort Stevens;

(b) Open a diagonal road from the junction of Quacenbos and 13th Street southerly to Concord Avenue, near the schoolhouse;

(c) Move Sheridan Street south to center on Fort Stevens, and carry it through to 16th Street. It hits a little run near 16th Street •which carries about a six per cent grade......

(d) Close old Piney Branch road between Sheridan and Concord; close Nicholson and 2d Streets where they pass through Fort Slocum; close old Rock Creek road from Georgia Avenue to the point just back of the schoolhouse on Concord road.

The other changes involved are the widening of Quackenbos and its being cut through from Georgia Avenue to 13th Street (it is my understanding that the schoolhouse at the cornet of Georgia Avenue is to be moved elsewhere); the widening of 8th Street where it passes through the Huriy and Keen estates; and cutting off a corner of block #3157, together with the widening of Nicholson Avenue through to North Capitol Street.

2. The plan, as drawn, contemplates 120 feet from Concord Avenue to the diagonal road, Quackenbos, 8th and Nicholson Streets, but on further investigation it turns out that adjustments of real estate lotting could probably be facilitated on Nicholson Street if it were made 140 feet and all taken—off on the north side. I have indicated this by a green line.

3. I wish here to raise the question of the width of the Fort Drive. So far, I have drawn it 120 feet, on the basis of a 20-foot set-back from the curb line, and a 30-foot drive on each side of a 20-foot strip in the center. If we are to make the "finest park system in the world", as Colonel Sherrill -stated he desired, we might do well to consider a minimum of 140 feet for this Fort Drive, using a hotter class of tree along its sides. On measuring up elms about the city I find that on New Hampshire Avenue a great many of them, if not the majority, spread 35 feet from the trunk. Somo years ago Olmsted and I measured up a great many trees, and concluded that in places where there was any liklihood of three or four-story buildings boing erected along the streets we should have a set-back of 40 feet, with a possible minimum of 35 feot. Assuming that in the course of time—say forty or fifty years—the small buildings immediately erected along these boulevards give way to larger buildings, such as apartment houses, more protentious dwellings, hotels, etc., it would thon turn out well to have made the road as follows: a 3&-foot sot-back and a 30-foot road each side of a ten-foot strip in the center, or a minimum of 140 feet. On such a road you can expect the elm tree to completely arch over in the course of time, and to make a solid mass of green from building to building. If we use the 120-foot road, we must use a tree of less spread, to avoid crowding in onto the buildings.

4. Please noto that Kansas Avenue, which we have chosen tentatively as our Piney Branch extension to Maryland, could have a very fine vista point in the circle at Fort Slocum. This is on the top of the hill.

5. Attention is culled to the fact that if one stands in the road at block #3157, Nicholson Street drops gently down into a valley, so that the opposite densly covered hillside of Fort Slocum furnishes u very fine vista point. It raises Fort Slocum to a position of importance.

6. The house on P-114/14, on old Blair Road, comes out anyway when North Capitol Street is put through. All in all, this furnishes a very good route at little expense. Appendix EE

J.C. Langdon to Major Brown, August 3, 1925, Subject: Fort Slocum and the fort drive from Sixteenth Street to North Capitol Street. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. subject: Fort Slocum and the fort drive from Sixteenth Street to North Capitol Street. .

This study is for the same purpose as that submitted on

July 31, and shows a more liberal treatment, in that it will carry

twice the volume of traffic and will undoubtedly raise the tax

valuation of the bordering property very materially, enough so,

I feel sure, to pay interest on the added land which would have

to be purchased to carry it out. If we were to say that either

one of these routes was the alternative to the other I should say

that the study of August 3, showing from 150 to 350 feet for a

parkway, carrying three routes, would be the first choice as more

nearly comparing with the excellent parkways of other cities, par­

ticularly of Washington, and that the one of July 31, following

the route of Nicholson Street, would bc the alternative. While

the latter one does not, by the mero rounding off of two streets,

become a real parkway, the wider one will bc the true parkway.

The "Set backs for most of its length would be 50 feet with two

border reads and a very liberal light traffic drive winding

through groves of trees in approximately its center. This

drive could bc widened to take increased traffic as the years

go on, there being enough space left on each side of each for

this purpose. If done, this road follows the bottom of a

valley which once carried an old stream from about Eighth Street TO: DATE:

SUBJECT:

to Third Street. It would cross from Georgia Avenue to

Thirteenth Street by taking possession ultimately of the

old school grounds on Georgia Avenue. There are two ways

that that portion from Thirteenth Street to Sixteenth could

be handled. One would be to widen sufficiently to take the

colored school on Concord Avenue in its center, carrying the

border road each side of it, and letting the school stand until

property values have induced the colored population- to move else­

where. If this method does not prove sound, then we could follow

the lighter lino shown on the drawings and let Concord Avenue ter­

minate at this junction at the parkway. What we would buy on the

south of the proposed Concord Avenue in this latter scheme would

be balanced by what wo would not buy on the north side as in the

first route so that the cost would probably be about the same by

either route. The other features of the plan as mentioned in

memorandum of July 31, remain the same - viz., Fort Stephens and

Fort Slocum. I am becoming moro and more convinced that the

first plan for the fort drive is the best one to recommend because

it furnishes the maximum in area and the necessary traffic capacity.

I believe we should see if we can set a high standard in the minds

of Congress for carrying out the entire circuit parkway about the

city on the same liberal scale. Wo would also avoid the assumption

among those who seek to establish the new planning commission that

we have not sufficient skill and foresight to handle the subject. J. G. Langdon Appendix FF

U.S. Grant, III, Executive and Disbursing Officer, National Capital Park and Planning Commission, to D.W. O’Donohue, July 31, 1926, relating to the route of Fort Drive. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. 500-50-(Par—101/17) 545-100/20— 545-10

July 31,1926.

Mr.D.W.O ’Donohue, Union Trust Building Washington D.C.

My dear Mr. O'Donohue:

It is the desire of the National Capital Pork and Planning Commission, in laying out a parkway to be known as the "Port Drive" connecting the Old Qivll War. forts-for : the defense of the city, to have this, parkway connecting Fort Stevens, just west of Georgla;'Avenue, with Fort Slocum, located, at3rd and Nicholson Street, to cross, Georgia Avenue at Quackenbos Street, turning southward to Concord Avenue: (formerly Shepherd Street), then follow Conoord Avenue eastward.

, .

j 7’ „ It is expected, that 9th Street, as thus developed Into such a Fort Drive, will probably have a double roadway with narrow parking between the two, tand for such development on a proper scale it is desired to have a 15 foot building line on each of the present lines of 9th Street, now, 90 feetwide .•A Of course, this does not transfer the title to this 15 feet, but prevents construction of buildings on this space. It is believed by. this Commission that such development of 9th Street will add very decidedly to its appear­ ance and its value to abutting property owners.

For this purpose, we would be very much pleased to have Mrs. Sarah Louisa Keene, owner of Parcel 101/17, which abuts on the east side of 9th Street from Concord Avenue northward a distance apparently about 80 or 90 feet, sign the enclosed agreement, assur­ ing her-' concurrence in dedicating this building line, on condition that such agreement shall be signed by the owners of all the land abutting on both sides of 9th Street between Concord Avenue and Quackenbos Street. The agreement is prepared so as to leave space for the signatures of trustees in any cases where trustees are involved. If you will be kind enough to secure such signature of Mrs. Sarah Louis Koene, it will be appreciated Yours very truly, s/ U.S.Grant, 3rd, fgc/en Executive and Disbursing Officer.

CROSS REFERENCES: SEE:500-50(Par-101/17) Appendix GG

C.W. Eliot, II, City Planner, “Fort Drive” Plan, April 1927. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. FORT DRIVE.

Each year sees further encroachments on the line of the Fort Drive. The Staff has attempted, to keep abreast of the times by making changes in the plans to avoid new houses and improvements erected in the line. This kind of revision has been made recently in the sections most likely to be built over during the caning year.

Heretofore, in considering purchases far the Fort Drive, the Commission has uniformly postponed action in the belief that areas serving only for the con­ nection of the forts and for no other purpose would be of little value unless a complete Fort Drive was in sight. Considering the progress made with the Cramton

Bill and the possible independent value of sane sections of the Fort Drive, even if the whole project is never completed, the Staff has re-estimated the following sections:

A. Fort Stevens to Fort Slocum.

When Mr. Langdon first prepared a detailed project for a connection between these forts in August, 1925, he suggested a route which incorporated a very fine group of oaks between 7th and 8th Streets and provided a strip varying from 230 to 260 feet in width with three roadways.

At the October, 1925 meeting of the National Capital Park Commission, Mr.

Langdon’s plan No..30 was adopted in principle and negotiations were begun with the land holders. As a result of these negotiations, it appeared that these owners demanded $327,000 for the property from Fort Stevens to and including Fort Slocum

Park (the park has since been acquired far about $163,000, leaving about $160,000 as the then cost of the connection) which was almost four times the then assessed value. At the second meeting of the new National Capital Park and Planning Com- mission on June 18, 1926, Major Brown recommended condemnation in accordance with

Mr. Langdon’s scheme, but the Commission refused, and instead, ordered a new study.

Early in July, 1926, Major Brown recommended a revision of Mr. Langdon’s scheme to substitute a route via Quackenboss, 9th Street, Concord Avenue and Madison

Street. This recommendation was made to the Commission at its August meeting. On

October 15, 1926, the Commission authorized purchase within 125% or condemnation to widen Madison Street to 120 feet between building lines and recommended a special treatment of the street to give it as much parkway character as possible. After protracted negotiations with owners, condemnation was finally resorted to, and instituted by the District Commissioners. The case was thrown out on a technicality concerning the description and preparation of the plat. New proceedings were ordered on July 31, 1928, and the case has not yet came up for determination by the court.

In February, 1927, a revised project along the general line suggested by

Mr. Langdon was developed by the Staff under my direction, which incorporated what was then left of the oaks, and by rearrangement of sone minor streets which had not then been dedicated, made a satisfactory alignment and width of from 200 to 230 feet for a parkway at an assessed value for land of about $111,000. No action was taken by the Commission. By May, 1927, when Mr. Olmsted and I went out on the ground for a detailed examination of the plan recommended in February, only one or two of the oaks remained,

streets had been dedicated and three or four houses were under construction directly in the line. Acting upon Mr. Olmsted’s advice, another revision of the plan was undertaken, putting a sharper curve in the line and narrowing the width of the parkway

so as to go between the houses then under construction. This plan was the basis for the estimate presented to the Commission in connection with the Five Year Program

outlined by the Committee on Parks in November, 1927. At that time the assessed value 3 of the whole section from Ft. Stevens to North Capitol Street beyond Fort Slocum was $123t623y and its estimated cost was about $200,000.

Since November 1927, six or eight new houses have been erected directly in the revised line suggested by Mr. Olmsted, the last of the oaks have been removed and several of the streets in the neighborhood have been partially paved. With these changed conditions, still another revision has been undertaken with still further redaction in the width of the parkway. Two schemes appear to be the most practical of the many studied. Schemes C and E are similar as respects the area between Georgia Avenue and Fifth Street. For this part a route is shown coming out from under Georgia Avenue as proposed by Mr. and then cutting diagonally across Square 2984 to the northeast comer of the school property where a new

Junior High School is now under construction. From this point the line curves in the other direction skirting the bank on top of which there are still remains of an old battery, to a line parallel with and just south of the existing Oneida Place.

East of 5th Street alternative locations are suggested on the two schemes

Scheme C shows a long curve direct to the proposed circle at Kansas Avenue, taking nine or eleven houses and slightly enlarging Fort Slocum Park. Scheme E puts in another reverse curve in ths line, involves 11 houses, and leaves Oglethoxpe Street as the north boundary of the Park. The assessed value for lands and improvements for the whole distance from Georgia Avenue to Kansas Avenue is almost the same for the two schemes - about $135,691. If either of these schemes is finally chosen, it is desirable to proceed immediately with acquisition of unimproved properties common to both. Since the value of improved properties will not increase greatly, they can be omitted until such time as the actual opening of the parkway is contemplated. - 4 -

Recommend adoption of a project in accordance with either Scheme C or

Scheme D and authorization to purchase at not over 125$ of the assessed value all unimproved areas within the limits of such project.

B. Broad Branch; Connecticut Avenue to Rook Creek Park. .

This project combines the Fort Drive with the preservation of the beautiful valley of Broad Branch. The route proposed for the Fort Drive follows the old Grant or Chappel Road from Connecticut Avenue along a branch valley southeast of Nebraska

Avenue to Broad Branch where it turns to the right to keep on the south side of the stream until it gets to a point under the hill below Battery Terrell. Crossing then to the north side, it turns again to follow the stream and soon begins to climb near another battery, with a side hill cut and fill, to pass over Swart Road (28th Street) and up ths ridge in Rock Creek Park to Military Road.

The preservation of the woods along this route and the continued existence of the stream requires the acquisition of about 19.5 acres. This area is divided between the low lying lands along the creek and the very steep wooded hillsides adjoining. The land is now (1930) assessed for $141,152.

Recommend approval of project and authorization to purchase within 125$ of the assessed value.

cwe/md4/18/29 Appendix HH

Carey H. Brown, Engineer, to The Newspaper Information Service, 1322 New York Avenue, Washington, DC, May 4, 1927. RG328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. Lixy 4th, i927.

The Newspaper Information Service, 1322 Now York Avenue, Washington, D. C.

Attention Mrs. Haffey. Dear Mrs. Haffey:

In response to your telephone inquiry made a few days ago, I an pleased to forward the following information regarding the Civil War forte and the project which contemplates their acquisition for park purposes and the establishment of the connecting parkway:

Tho Civil War Forts around Washington were built on hills and ridges which commanded distant views. The historic interest attaching to the "Defenses of Washington" and the remarkable views obtainable from the old Forts has led to a domani that these sites should bo hold by the public for park purposes and that a connecting drive should be built between them.

A Fort Drive appears on the Highway Plan of 1098. The preser­ vation of Fort sites and the connection of the Forts were advocated in the Report of the Senate Park Commission of 1901. More recently, the need of a Fort Drive was used as one of the chief arguments for the estab­ lishment of the National Capital Park and planning Commission.

No better account of the sites and development of the Civil War Forts about Washington can be asked than that contained in the report of Major General J. G. Barnard on "The Defenses of Washington" published in 1871, from which the following io quoted:

"The system of parks constituting what are called the defenses of Washington may be divided into four groups: "First. Those south of the Potomac, commencing with Fort Lyon below Alexandria, an- terminating with Fort Do Kalb opposite Georgetown.

"Second. Those of the Chain Bridge.

"Third. Those north of the Potomac, between that river and the Anacostia, commencing with Fort Sumner and terminating with Fort Lincoln. - 2 -

"Fourth. Those south of the Eastern Branch, commencing with Fort Mahan, and terminating with Fort Greble, nearly opposite Alexandria.

"The perimeter thus occupied, not counting the interval from Fort Greble to Fort Lyon, is about 33 miles, or, including that, 37 miles. The aggregate length of military roads constructed was about 32 miles.

Thus the forts constituted a rough ring distant four to seven miles from the Capitol and the White House. The military road referred to was of course slightly in the rear of the forts, that is, on the side toward the control portion of the city.

Of the four groups mentioned by General Barnard, the first and second are in Virginia and the third and fourth mainly within the District of Columbia, though some of them are in Maryland.

i. APPENDIX B

Civil War Forts within the District of Columbia.

The works lying within the District of Columbia were- fully described in the report of Gen. Barnard as follows: .

’’The site of FORT BAYARD was a very peculiar knob of rock, with par­ tial and thin earth surface. Its occupation being compulsory, a work perfectly elliptical in trace, designed by Colonel Alexander, was built on-it. Its (relatively) powerful battery was intended to sweep the approach by the ’river road’ and to flank the contiguous line of defense."

. "FORT BEKO. - This work occupies a commanding position at a point where the dividing ridge between the Potomac and Rock Creek narrows so as to expose the slopes in both directions. It commands the three roads which unite at Tennallytown. The work, as originally built, was deficient in size, its exposed parapets too thin, and it had not a good view of the approaches from the northward.

"Between Forts Rono and Kearney is a battery (ROSSEL) very substan­ tially constructed for eight field guns with magazine, but with open gorge. It has good views of the cross valley running from near Fort Pennsylvania (Reno) to Broad Branch, (a tributary of Rock Creek) and sees’ well the ridge of high ground in front of Fort3 Pennsylvania, Kearney and De Russy.

"FORT DE RUSSY occupies a very commanding point overlooking the deep valley of Rock Creek, and throwing a cross fire upon the approaches to Fort Massachusetts, (Stevens) and (together with Fort Kearny) controlling the country roads between Rockville Turnpike and Rock Creek.

"BATTERIES CAMERON, PARROTT, AND KEMBLE. - The first of two rifled James 42-pounders, the ether two of one rifled 100-pounder each, are designed,

. "1st. To enfilade the front 6f the Arlington lines from Fort DeKalb to Tillinghast.

"2nd. To operate on the heights between Forts DeKalb and Ethan Allen,• on which the enemy could plant artillery to bear upon those works, and upon the marginal spurs, upon which batteries could bc established to bear on the Aque­ duct or Chain Bridge.

"FORT MASSACHUSETTS, (Stevens,) in conjunction ’with Fort Slocum, commands one of the principal avenues of approach to Washington. The original work was entirely inadequate to its important purpose. It has recently been judiciously enlarged, and, with the addition, is a powerful and satisfactory work

"FORT SLOCUM. - From two-thirds of a mile to one mile in advance of Forts Massachusetts end Slocum the country rises to heights, say 20 to 30 feet, higher then the crests of those works, furnishing to an enemy most advantageous emplacements for artillery. Along the dividing ridge of this high ground, bo- tween Rock Crock and the Eastern Branch, leads the Seventh Street turnpike road. These .'two works are, therefore, exposed, to the most powerful efforts of the enemy, Fort Slocum, though originally of more respectable dimensions than Fort Massa­ chusetts, was nevertheless a small work, and quite inadequate in strength, .rament, and bomb-proof shelter. The work is undergoing a considerable and judicious enlargement by which its armament will bc very greatly increased. The high ground spoken of, in advance of these works, trill be under the fire of the 100-pounders and other rifled guns of Forts De Hussy and Totten, besides that if the enlarged and powerful batteries of the works themselves.

’’FORT TOTTEN occupies a commanding and strong position, and exercises powerful influence upon the approaches from the northward and those through the valley between it and Fort Lincoln. It is well adapted to its position, ..well.;built and armed, amply provided with magazines and bomb-proofs. The 100- pounder here placed will sweep the sector from Fort De Russy to Fort Lincoln. ’’FORT SLEMMER. - A well-placed battery for three 32- pounder guns.

’’FORT BUNKER HILL occupies a very commanding position, but is deficient in interior space. An advanced battery for field guns is designed, with covered approaches, or rifle-trenches, connecting with the flanks of the work.

’’FORTS SARATOGA AND THAYER are minor works forming connecting links between Forts Hunker Hill and Lincoln; they are both lunettes with faces of 100 feet and stockaded forges. •

’’FORT LINCOLN is situated on an eminence overlooking the extensive valley formed by ths Eastern Branch and its tributaries and commanding the Baltimore turnpike, the railroad, and several minor roads which, passing through or near Bladensburg, lead into Washington. At the foot of this eminence was fought the battle of Bladensburg. The narrowness of the summit on which it is situated is unfavorable to a good trace.

. ’’FORT MAHAN may be considered an advanced teto-de-pont to Benning’s Bridge, and commands the valley of the Eastern Branch us far as Bladensburg as well us the immediate approaches to the bridge. It is situ-ted upon an isolated hill, the stoop slopes of which arc unseen from the fort and uro necessarily defended by external rifle-trenches. As long as this work is held, an enemy cannot bring artillery to bear upon the bridge nor move- in force along the road which loads from Bladensburg to the Navy Yard Bridge. Between this road and that loading along the summit of the highlands southeast of the Anacostia, the ground is very much cut up, at right angles to the direction of the reads, by wooded ravines. Hence this work exercises a powerful influence in preventing an enemy, coming from the direction of Bladensburg, from reaching the margins of the Anacostia opposite Washington.

’’With this view, at a late period of the war, the three small works (one of which is marked Fort Chaplin) were commenced. One of them, occupying a similar site, differed from Fort Bayard (elsewhere described) only in being circular instead of elliptical. These works had been nearly completed, but not armed or garrisoned, at the close of the war. ’’The chain of works, ten in all, from Fort Meigs to Fort Greble, occupies the summit of the ridge "between the Eastern Branch and. Oxen Bun, from almost all points of which, in this distance of six miles, an enemy can bring batteries to boar upon the Navy Yard or Arsenal.

’’FORT BAKER was designed us a strong point on the ridge. Its site is the only one between Forts Meigs and Stanton admitting considerable dimensions It is a strong and well-armed work. A ravine near and parallel to its front requires a battery or block-house to guard it. The steep slopes behind it may bo well defended by rifle-trenches.

’’FORT WAGNER is a battery intended to sweep the. valley through which the road leads up the heights.

’’FORT RICKETTS is a buttery intended to sweep the dc-.jp ravine in front of Fort Stanton.

’’FORT STATION occupies the nearest point of the ridge to the Arsenal and Navy Yard, and overlooks Washington, the Potomac, and Eastern Branch. It is a work of considerable dimensions, well built, and tolerably well armed.

’’FORT SNYDER may bc regarded as an out-work to Fort Stanton, guard­ ing the head of one branch of the ravine just mentioned.

"FORT CARROLL. - South of the ravine already spoken of the character of the summit between Oxen Run and the Eastern Branch changes. Instead of a narrow ridge, it expands, at a level one hundred and thirty foot lov/or, into a plateau of considerable width. At Fort Carroll this plateau narrows so as to afford view of both slopes. A spur toward Oxen Run gives a fine view of its valley from opposite Fort Snyder to opposite Fort Greble; this point is occupied by a battery inclosed at gorge by a stockade. The fort itself is large and well built.

’’FORT GREBLE occupies the extremity of the plateau. It is a large •and powerful 'work, well provided with magazines and bomb-proofs.

’’Designed- for a purpose quite foreign to field engineering, the two works erected in 1863 for defense against maritime attacks through the Potomac demand a special description; the more- especially as they wore built after experience had perfected our manner of construction and caused them to bc, in many respects, model works.

’’FORT FOOTE. - This work was constructed for the purpose of defend­ ing, in connection with Battery Rodgers, the water approach to the city. It was situated six miles below Washington, on a commanding bluff of the Maryland shore, clovated 100 feet above the river. . 6

The present project contemplates the acquisition of as many of these forts as say bo reasonably practical, particularly those which are in a good state of preservation and which therefore retain their historical interest. . As has been previously stated, those forts occupy the most com madingn sites within the area. Unfortunately the old military road has disappeared in many places, during the progress of building development, but it will be practicable in isolated instances to utilise portions of this old military road an a part of the fort drive conncotion.

Kight of the forts located within the District of Columbia have been acquired for park purposes and at least two more are in process of acquisition at the present time. A smlla beginning has been made on the acquisition of land for the fort drive. Unfortunately it will now be impracticable to carry out the fort drive on the scale proposed in 1901, as many sections of (illegible) built upon in the mountains.

It is hoped ultimately to extent this project beyond the lines of the District of Columbia, particularly in Virginia, where a very consid­ erable) number of these old forts are located. Similarly any which are located in Maryland should be acquired although the number so located, and consequently the possibilities of the project, are much more limited than in Virginia. Trusting that this gives the information desired, I am,

Yours very truly,

Carey II. Brown, Engineer.

CHB:C®G Appendix II

House of Representatives Bill, HR. 10556, February 6, 1928, to acquire Fort Stevens. 70th Congress 1st Session H.R. 10556

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1928

Mr. RATHBONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com­ mittee on Military Affairs and ordered to be printed

A BILL To acquire Fort Stevens, in the District of Columbia, and such other land as may be necessary to preserve said fort as an historic landmark.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That in order suitably to preserve that part of Fort Stevens,

4 in the District of Columbia, which lies west of the first 5 street west of Georgia Avenue in the city of Washington, 6 in said District, and the monument erected by the associa-

7 tion of the survivors of the Sixth Union Army Corps at

8 the point where President Abraham Lincoln was under 9 fire in the battle which occurred in front of said fort in the

1 Civil War, all of the grounds and earthworks of said fort 2 now existing, and such other grounds as may be necessary 3 properly to preserve the same, arc hereby declared to be 4 an historic landmark; and the Secretary of War be, and 5 is hereby, authorized and directed to acquire by pur­

6 chase when the prices arc deemed reasonable by him. 7 otherwise by condemnation under the procedure prescribed 8 by the laws within said District in such cases, all of said 9 fort and such other lands as arc deemed necessary by him

10 for roads and the suitable preservation of said fort and

11 monument to the end that it may be declared to be a national

12 monument by the President of the United States as pro­ 13 vided by the Act of June 8, 1906.

14 Sec. 2. To enable the Secretary of War to carry out 15 the provisions of this Act, including the condemnation, pur­

16 chase of the necessary lands, surveys, maps, marking 17 boundaries, opening, constructing, or repairing necessary 18 roads and streets, salaries for labor and services, traveling

19 expenses, supplies and materials, the sum of $25,000, or so 20 much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby authorized

21 to be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not

22 otherwise appropriated to remain available until expended,

23 and the disbursements under this Act shall bc reported by 24 the Secretary of War to Congress. Appendix JJ

W.C. Eliot, City Planner, National Capital Park and Planning commission, to Major Brown, May 10, 1929, offering three schemes for the location of Fort Drive south of Fort Reno. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION.

C. Vf. Eliot 2d. May 10, 9. Major Brown. . Tort Drive, south of Fort Reno

In accordance with Mr. Nichol’s suggestion, there are presented herewith three schemes for the location of the Fort Drive south of Reno. Scheme A

Assessed value $58,993; is the cheapest of these schemes and has, I think, the best alignment. Approaching from the south, it uses 42nd Street, passes through a house at the northeast corner of 42nd and Yuma and skirts the south edge of the school property, passing between the old school and the new school. Mr. Jeffers has suggested that it might be possible to close the little piece of 41st Street north of Yuma, and in consideration of the land gained by the Catholic institutions thereby, get them to give us the 7800 square feet needed from them for the parkway. Such an exchange would further reduce the cost. The dis­ advantages of this scheme ore the complicated intersection at Wisconsin Avenue and the division of the school property. Scheme B

Estimated assessed value $75,530. Has a good alignment but involves more property. This line again comes up 42nd Street, passing through the house on the northwest comer of 42nd and Yuma and passes midway between the new school extended and the police station; thon continues across River Road at Wisconsin Avenue and through the present library. The disadvantages of this scheme are the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and River Road, and the cost. It is also to be noted that, unlike scheme A, this arrangement gets no advantage from the proposed park area south of Brandywine Street and east of 40th.

I Scheme C

Assessed value $73,886. Starts as in Scheme B but turns a sharper angle at Albemarle Street to pass in front of the school and then another angle into approximately the line of 40th Street. The disadvantage of this scheme lies in its alignment.

I prefer Scheme A and recommend its adoption. If we fail to make an ''agreement with the school people, I recommend scheme C as being the best alternative

I •f

i City Planner *ncls. 3. , 2 blue prints z ; . Qtyped report of assessments on Schemes A, B & C.(^\ ) Appendix KK

Capper-Cramton Act, Public Law No. 284, 71st Congress, Approved May 29, 1930, Statutes at Large. Volume 46, page 482. 46 Stat. 482 approved May 29, 1930 with amendment (Public Law 699 [Public—No. 284—71st Congress] 79th Cong.) [H, R. 26] An Act For the acquisition, establishment, and of the George Washington Memorial Parkway along the Potomac . Vernon and Fort Washington to the Great Falls, and to provide for the acquisition of lands in the District of Columbia and the States of Maryland and Virginia requisite to the comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system of the National Capital. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $9,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for acquiring and developing, except as in this section otherwise provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 6,1924, entitled “An Act providing for a compre­ hensive development of the park and playground system of the National Capital,” as amended, such lands in the States of Maryland and Virginia -as are necessary and desirable for the park and park­ way system of the National Capital in the environs of Washingtori. Such funds shall be appropriated as required for the expeditious, economical, and efficient development and completion of the follow­ ing projects: (a) For the George Washington Memorial Parkway, to include the shores of the Potomac, and adjacent lands, from Mount Vernon to a point above the Great Falls on the Virginia side, except within the city of Alexandria, and from Fort Washington to a similar point above the Great Falls on the Maryland side except within the District of Columbia, and including the protection and preser­ vation of the natural scenery of the Gorge and the Great Falls of the Potomac, the preservation of the historic Patowmack Canal, and the acquisition of that portion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal below Point of Rocks, $7,500,000: Provided, That the acquisition of any land in the Potomac River Valley for park purposes shall not debar or limit, or abridge its use for such works as Congress may in the future authorize for the improvement and the extension of navi­ gation, including the connecting of the upper Potomac River with- the Ohio River, or for flood control or irrigation or drainage, or for the development of hydroelectric power. The title to the lands acquired hereunder shall vest in the United States, and said lands, including the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway authorized by the Act approved May 23, 1928, upon its completion, shall be maintained and administered by the Director of -Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, who shall exercise all the authority, power, and duties with respect to lands acquired under this section as are conferred upon him within the District of Columbia by the . Act approved February 26, 1925; and said director is authorized to incur such expenses as may be necessary for the proper adminis­ tration and maintenance of said lands within the limits of the appropriations from time to time granted therefor from the Treas- / / (Pub. 284.) 3 and storm water flow: Provided further, That no money shall be contributed by the United States for any unit of such extensions until the National Capital Park and Planning Commission shall have received definite commitments from the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission for the balance of the cost of acquiring such unit of said extensions deemed by said commis­ sion sufficiently complete, other than lands now belonging to the United States or donated to the United States: Provided further, That in the discretion of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission upon agreement duly entered into with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commis­ sion to reimburse the United States as hereinafter provided, it may advance the full amount of the funds necessary for the acquisi­ tion of the lands required for such extensions referred to in this paragraph, such advance, exclusive of said contribution of $1,500,000 by the United States, not to exceed $3,000,000, the appropriation of which amount from funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated is hereby authorized, such agreement pro­ viding for reimbursement to the United States of such advance, exclusive of said Federal contribution, without interest within not more than eight years from the date of any such expenditure. The title to the lands acquired hereunder shall vest in the State of Mary­ land. The development and administration thereof shall be under the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission and in accordance with plans approved by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The United States is not to share in the cost of construction of roads in the areas mentioned in this paragraph, except if and as Federal-aid highway's. Sec. 2. Whenever it becomes necessary to acquire by condemnation proceedings any lands in the States of Virginia or Maryland for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, such acquisition shall be under and in accordance 'with the provisions of the Act of August 1, 1888 (U. S. C., p. 1&02, sec. 257). No payment shall be made for any such lands until the title thereto in the United States shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General of the United States. Sec. 3. Whenever the use of the Forts Washington, Foote, and Hunt, or either of them, is no longer deemed necessary for military purposes they shall be turned over to the Director of Public Build­ ings and Public Parks of the National Capital, without cost, for administration and maintenance as a part of the said George Wash­ ington Memorial Parkway. Sec. 4. There is hereby further authorized to be appropriated the sum of $16,000,000, or so much, thereof as may be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appro­ priated, for the acquiring of such lands in the District of Columbia as are necessary and desirable for the suitable development of the National Capital park, parkway, and playground system, in accord­ ance with the provisions of the said Act of June 6, 1924, as amended, except as in this section otherwise provided. Such funds shall be appropriated for the fiscal year 1931 and thereafter as required for the expeditious, economical, and efficient accomplishment of the pur­ poses of this Act and shall be reimbursed to the United States from any funds in the Treasury to the credit of the District of Columbia Appendix LL

T.C. Jeffers to Captain Chisolm, Relating to Fort Drive, March 13, 1931, establishes Fort Drive sections for convenience in dividing the plan. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. REPRODUCED AT TX NATIONAL ARCH VES t

T. C. Jeffera. Baroh 13,1931. xx

Captain Chisolm* Fort Drive.

1. For convenience in dividing the plan and estimate cf' Fort Drive into sections, the following divisions arc in use in the office of the National Capital Parle & Planning Commission: Section A Potomac Ave. to Newark Street. Section B Newark Street to Chesapeake Street - (Reno) Section C Howard Street (Reno) to Rock Creek Park Section D Rock Creek Perk to Fart Stevens Section E Fort Stevens to Fort Totten Section F Fort Totten to Eastern Avenue and 16th Section G 16th and Eastern Avenue to Randolph Street. Section H Randolph Street to Bladensburg Rd. (Nat'l.Train.School) Section I National Tr. Sch. to Anacostia River. Section J Anacostia River to Ft. Mahan Section K Ft. Mahan to Fort Dupont. Section L Ft. Dupont to Branch Avenue. Section M Branch Avenue to 18th and Irving Sts. (Anacostia) Section N 18th and Irving Sts to Alabama Ave. & St. Elizabeth’s. Section O Alabama Avenue end St. Elizabeth's to Atlantio Avenue. Section P - Atlantic Avenue to Blue Plains. Appendix MM

Charles W. Eliot, 2d, Director of Planning, to L.F. Schmeckebier, The Brookings Institution, January 26, 1933. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1. January 26, 1933.

Mr. L. F. Schmeckebier, . The Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C.

Subject: Old Civil War Forts. Dear Mr. Schmeckebiar:

In response to your request for a map showing the location of the old Civil War Forts in relation to the present street plan, I have marked in red the locations that I know of on the accompanying highway map. You will find a full description of those fortifications in General Barnard's Defenses of Washington which, of course, con be consulted in any local library. That book contains detailed plans of most of those works which are referred to under the following names in relation to the numbers shown on the plan:

1. Battery Cameron - site of Mrs. J. B. Harriman's house. 2. Battery Parrott - site of Mr. Baker’s new house. 3. Fort Kemble - now park. 4. Battery Scott - gone. 5. Battery Vermont - a few traces. 6. Fort Gaines - practically destroyed by Massachusetts Avenue; few pieces left. 7. Trenches - still visible. 8. Fort Reno - wholly destroyed. 9. Battery Kearney - destroyed last year by school construction. 10. Battery Terrell - parly on Tompkins Estate; partly in park recently bought. 11. Battery Smead - still exists. 12. Fort De Russey - in Rook Creek Park. 13. Battery Sill - partly in Rock Creek Park. 14. Fort Stevens - half destroyed; remainder in park. 13. Trenches - still existing. 16. Fort Slocum - rifle range in park. 17. Fort Totten - almost complete. Now park. 18. Fort Slemmer - destroyed by Catholic institutions. 19. Fort Bunker Hill - now park. 20. Fort Thayer - wholly destroyed. 21. Fort Lincoln - still visible in National Training School Grounds. 22. Fort Mahan - now park. 23. Fort Chaplin - partly park. . 24. Fort Sedgwick - in cemetery; partly destroyed. 2-

25. Tort Dupont - park. . 26. Fort Davis - park. 27. Fort Baker - destroyed two years ago. ' . 28. Fort 3tanton -half in park preserved; remainder gone. 29. Fort Snyder - wholly destroyed. 30. Fort Carroll - part in park preserved; remainder gone. 31. Fort Greble - good condition. 32. Trenches - in park. A. Site of Fort Wagner near Good Hope Road. Site somewhat uncertain.

These were the principal fortifications, and I hope this map will serve your purpose. Sincerely,

OWE/md Charles W. Eliot 2d, Map Director of Planning. accompanying Appendix NN

National Capital Park and Planning Commission Emergency Public Works Program, Brief Justification for Fort Drive Projects, August 31, 1933, arranged and discussed by sections. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. EMERGENCY PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM ...

BRIEF JUSTIFICATION FOB

. FORT DRIVE PROJECTS August 31, 1933

Total Priority Project Estimated Cost

Fort Drive at Fort Reno - Chesapeake St, to Connecticut Ave,:

Detail plans have been approved by the National Capital Park & Planning Commission* The project is essentially park road construction for opening of area for recreational use, on which nearly $600,000 of public funds have been spent for land acquisi- tion. The partway will connect two existing schools and the new Wilson Senior High School for which initial funds were appropriated by the last Congress. Inclusion of the Fort Drive project in con­ nection with development of school properties will permit savings in cost of temporary roadways for access to these school. The project will also provide adequate access to Fort Reno, the highest point in the District of Columbia. All necessary land for the project is now owned by the Government.

Fort Drive - 8th Street to Kansas Avenue:

Preliminary plans have been approved as a basis for final plans* All necessary land is in public ownership, representing an investment of over $300,000 at present not utilized* This parkway passes through a highly developed residential area and is the first of its kind in the District of Columbia. For that reason it is desirable that this project bo carried cut at an early date in order that public support may be obtained for other projects based on the same principle of design. This project is a link in a cross-town traffic route. It should stimulate residential building construction in adjoining areas, increase assessed values, and tie in with the development of New Hampshire Avenue which is included in the Public Works highway pro­ gram of the District of Columbia. Savings can be effected in the im­ provement of intersecting local streets in the near future if this project is carried out at this time. Fort Drive - Madison Street to Fort Totten:

Preliminary plans prepared and approved in principle by the National Capital Park & Planning Commission. This section, nearly one mile in length, connects by existing streets with section proposed under item and in combination will form one of the important units of the . proposed Fort Drive connecting Forts Stevens, Slocum and Totten. Fine distant views are obtained from the parkway and Fort Totton. Together with parkway under item___ this route will form a needed cross-town connection in one of the rapidly growing sections of suburban Washing­ ton, and will increase assessed values and stimulate the building of w homes. All land necessary has been purchased, representing an invest­ A ment of nearly $300,000* -2- Total Estimated J Priority Project Coat

Port Drive - Bladensburg Road to Kenilworth Avenue;

Preliminary studies have been completed. Project involves heavy grading, 2 1/2 miles of roadway construction, railroad overpass and bridge across Anacostia River. All land is owned by the Federal Government except small parcel at Bladensburg Road in . process of acquisition. Project will provide access to extensive public areas and supply much needed cross-town connection, relieving traffic on Bladensburg and Benning Roads, and providing a new river crossing between Bonning Bridge and the Defense Highway, a distance of over three miles. Project is essential link in the Fort Drive plan. Appendix OO

Documents pertaining to and those submitted with the application for loan or grant for PWA funds to begin construction of Fort Drive, including a copy of the application and “General Specifications—Fort Drive Project, 1938. Archives of the District of Columbia, Records of the District of Columbia, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department, Engineer Department (ED), Case Files, 1897-1955, #248515. CHAUNCEY P CARTER ATTORNEY- AT - LAW

The Commissioners of the District of Columbia, District Building, t Washington, D. C. f

Sirs:

Noting that there is apparently available for the use of the District of Columbia considerable PWA funds for "worthy projects, and noting further that the Commissioners are now applying to the PWA for funds to build the first unit of the Port Drive from Potomac Avenue past Port Reno, I have the honor to suggest that consideration be given to the desirability of seeking PWA funds for the construction of all or some portion of the George Washington Memorial Boulevard from Poxhall Road to the District Line. • » For some unknown reason, this important unit of the George Wash­ ington Memorial Boulevard within the District of Columbia ap­ pears to have been lost sight of, and no progress has been made in connection therewith for a number of years- It is understood that the Government has acquired a large percentage of the ground necessary for completion of this unit of the Memorial Boulevard, and it is believed that this project is exactly the type for which PWA finds are now available. It would seem to be especially desirable that this project be completed in order to connect up with the Port Drive unit that is about tos be built, as other­ wise there is no proper entrance to the lower, end of this first unit of the Port Drive. The idea of a boulevard along the river on Potomac Avenue has been discussed officially and in the public prints for a great • many years, and the official designation of this proposed boule­ vard along Potomac Avenue as a unit of George Washington Memorial Highway has made this proposed project one of- major- importance.- It would be regrettable if some portion of the funds now avail- able from the PWA were not used to furtha this worthy project. Very truly yourA- cpc:eu copies to: The Secretary of the Interior National Capital Park and Planning Commission' The Evening Star - . ; August 17, 1938 Mr. H.A. Oray, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, Washington, D, C.

Sir: '

Forwarding herewith an application to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works for a loan and grant in the amount of $1,080,000.00 for the purpose of aiding in financing the con­ struction of Fart Drive, which project has boon designated as D.C. Docket #1029* In addition to the fully executed P.WA. Form #155 (Applica­ tion) and P.W.A. Form #156 (Engineering Information) there is ap­ pended a general plan, general specifications and a Justification for the project. Thia application by the District of Columbia is proposed as one of the projects to be included under the general authorisation embodied in Public Act #745, 75th Congress, 3rd Session

The Commissioners request favorable action on tills applica­ tion and will hold themselves in readiness to furnish additional information at any time you nay require it* . Very respectfully,

Secretary Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Enclosures* PWA Form No. Docket No. DO-1081 155 June 1, 1935 FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS HAROLD L. ICKES. ADMINISTRATOR Washington

APPLICATION FOR LOAN AND GRANT

State

State File No (Not to be filled in by applicant)

The 1 Commissioners of the District of Columbia

(herein called the Applicant), hereby makes application to the United States of America through the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (herein called the "Government"), and a grant for the purpose of aiding; financing the

construction of 2 Fort Drive between Conduit Road and Tort Totten in the

(herein called, the.‘‘Project”) the total cost of which is estimated to be $3 1080000.00 In the event this application is approved and the Government offer .to assist in,financing the construction of the Project, the Applicant, if it accepts such offer, will

make repayment in accordance with the provision of Public 746, 7th Cong. 3rd Sessi It is expressly understood that if the Government makes the above requested loan and grant, the Applicant, in accepting such ioahtand^gfran^,proceeds, in expending the same,'and in carrying out the construction of the Project, will abide by all rules and regulations prescribed by the Government.

In witness whereof, the Applicant has caused this' application to 'be duly executed in its name, this

. day of General Construction Equivalent of 73 miles of 40' roadway with curb, gutters, drain,

[seal] By

Coatingencies

• Insert comet corporate name of Applicant. . • Describe Project briefly. . > Insert estimated ost of Project. < Signature of officer authorised to execute Application. • Title of officer executing application Interior Building. Washington. D. c. July 21st, 1938.

Col. Daniel I. Sultan, Washington, D.C. My dear Col. Sultan: - I was very glad to get your letter of July 5th and note the long list of projects which you have included in the plan for the expenditures from funds allocated by Congress this year. That you are able to make such a splendid list is a tribute to farsighted planning which you have conducted. I have no criticisms whatever to make of you list but I would be very glad if you can included in the eighteen millions we are to spend; a sub­ stantial sum for carrying out the Fort Drive. It may be that some will criticize this project but it was one of the first adopted by the Park and Planning Commission and the fact that this ring of historic forts touch the high points sur­ rounding the city, has always appealed to me as ~ reason for connecting them by a suitable parkway. I believe that this parkway, if not too badly cut up by cross streets, will become, just as Rock Creek Parkway has become, an Important artery for the city which will add greatly to the value of nearby property and therefore, contribute to the city's finances in the future. Sincerely yours, f /

Docket No.

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS -FORT DRIVE PROJECT.

. General Descript ion

' The improvement of Fort Drive will consist of the construction of a forty foot roadway, curbing and guttering, construction of drainage structures and necessary retailing walls, one or two simple grade separation -structures, and including grading and minor adjustments classified as roadside development to the extent necessary to heal the construction scare. The project will also include the development of several inter­ sections where the Tort Drive crosses arterial highway or boulevard streets of the Highway System of the District of Columbia.

Extent of Project

The part of Fort Drive covered by these specifications contem­ plates continuous construction frets Conduit Road to the vicinity of Fort Totten. Section B of the Fort Drive has been completed and links in with the section to the north and south of this present development. Section D-l, known as Military Road through Rock Creek Park, will not bo included in this development, however, the existing roadway will be utilised as a part of Fort Drive ponding the development of grade separation plane at Military Road and Beach Drive In Rock Greek Park. Section 5-1 has been partially graded and temporarily surfaced and will require additional grading work and complete surfacing for proper development, in the following list naming the various sections, character of the improvement has been indicated and wherever new construction is listed it la intended to call for the type of construction hereinafter described: Length Section Location Feet Character of Improvement (Scaled) A Conduit Road to Nebraska Ave. 6000 New construction. B Nebraska Ave to Chesapeake st . 7500 Roadway completed. C-1 Chesapeake st to Connecticut ave 3150 Partially graded and tempo­ rary surface; to be repaved. C-2 Connecticut Ave to Rock Creek 3350 Hew construction. c-3 Rook Creek Pk.to Military Rd. 3350 Hew construction. (Plane by H. C. Parks). D-l Military Road to 14th street 6150 Existing roadway to be retained for preeent. D-2 14th Street to Georgia Avenue 1900 Hew construction. E-l Georgia ave to 3rd street 4400 Haw construction. Part graded. E-2 3rd Street to Kennedy street 4400 Hew construction. E-3 Kennedy st to Gallatin street 1700 Hew construction. Type of Construction

The type of roadway to bo constructed will follow generally the park typo* however, with either concrete base or black bass, six inches thick, as conditions require, with a 'two Inch warfacing of asphaltic con­ crete* curb and gutter will bo of the park typo with low sloping curbs except In such location* as where the curbing la tied In with existing street cube and other plana of development that dictate the use of a standard city etfb* Drainage structures, retaining walls and other necessary small structures will follow In design existing or approved types constructed In accordance with the standard specifications of the District of Columbia. Detailed working drawings for each section will be furnish- ed showing all grades, sections, design of drainage structures, profiles and other necessary details* Appendix PP

Chauncey P. Carter, Lawyer, on behalf of the owner of lot 3 to 7 inclusive in Square 1608, to Melvin C. Hazen, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, September 3, 1938, pertaining to the latest plan for Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. COPY

CHAUNCEY P.. CARTER LAWYER 3111 Foxhall Road Washington, D. C.

' September 3, 1938.

The Honorable Melvin C. Hazen, President, Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, District Building, Washington, D. C.

Sir:

I am advised that the latest plan for the Fort Drive contemplates following the line of Nebraska Avenue from Conduit Road to Ca-, thedral Avenue, but that at some point just North of Cathedral .. . Avenue the line of Nebraska Avenue is abandoned and the Drive routed through the park to emerge in a double lane on Nebraska Avenue just west of Foxhall Road.

I am further informed that those in charge of planning the Fort Drive are in many cases ignoring the plan of the permanent system of highways and routing the drive substantially parallel to Dis­ trict thoroughfares that could well be utilized for such Drive.

In the present case, property owners in and around Wesley Heights and Spring Valley have purchased their properties based on the permanent highway plan as shown in the official maps and have in particular assumed that Chain Bridge Road would eventually give way to the plan for Nebraska Avenue.

It now appears that Nebraska Avenue is to end at Indian Lane, and that in lieu of the Permanent Highway plan for Nebraska Avenue south of Indian Lane, we are to have a link of the Fort Drive that will cut through the narrowest section of the park and emerge from this park on Nebraska Avenue west of Foxhall Road.

It is submitted that it is not only unfair to property owners out here but a shame to destroy the upper and narrow end of this park by a drive, when this destruction might be readily avoided by following the line of Nebraska Avenue as laid out on the map of the permanent highway system. It is not clear who is responsible for or who has authorized this change in the permanent highway system, but it seems clear that residents and property owners in the District have been given no notice of it and that it has not been given sufficient, if any, consideration by the Board of Com­ missioners.

I have filed a protest with Hon. Harold iokes in connection with REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Page 2 the application for WPA loan for this construction, and I am now obtaining signatures of property owners in this vicinity to a petition opposing this spoliation of the park.

I respectfully request that you issue instructions to Major David­ son to show cause why this section of the Fort Drive should not follow the permanent highway plan for Nebraska Avenue.

Respectfully,

In behalf of the owner of lots 3 to 7 inclusive in square 1608. Appendix QQ

“Statement Regarding Fort to Fort Drive, Washington, D. C., March 17, 1939. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100 Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. STATEMENT REGARDING FORT

TO FORT,WASHINGTON DRIVED. C.

March 17, 1939.

Ths earliest possible completion of the "Fort to Fort" Park­

way Drive connecting all major elements of Washington’s Park System

and directly linked with the proposed George Washington Memorial

Parkway up to Grant Falls and down to Mount Vernon and Fort Washing­

ton, is one of the moot important needs of the Dietriot. The con­

ception of this drive - some 23 1/3 miles long, making a complete semi-

circle from the Potomac Palisades on the west to Shepherd Parkway

on the south use almost the first park project planned and adopted

by the Commission soon after its formation in 1936.

One of the greatest pleasure car traffic needs in Washington is ths creation of a circumferential drive in the outlying areas of

the District is order to relieve the rapidly growing central area

traffic congestion. The District was and is, woefully lacking in

short cut routes between the various residential sections and the sub-business centers. The Commission, as soon after its appointment as it had oppor­ tunity to make a careful survey of all planning and traffic problems, was unanimous in the conclusion that the District of Columbia stood almost alone among American cities in the lack of any well-connected boulevard or parkway drives. Study of perk and boulevard systems of other cities of comparable size plainly revealed thio vary great lack of foreplannlng in thevehicular circulation system of the capital. » s •*

valuethe of such parkways or boulevards, weldlag and tieing

together residential areas and affording routes for pleasure drives as well as daily travel, is indisputable based upon the results

achieved in other cities, Washington, with its beautiful drives through Rock Creek Park and (the) Potomac Park had apparently been

lulled Into a certain sense of satisfaction and had been blinded to

the vary sad neglect in providing some kind of a boulevard and park way system*

The need for an outlying circulatory drive was further accen tuated in Washington by the immense amount of traffic to and from the residential areas passing directly through the city which should have routes around the down-town business cantor*

Then too, it was perfectly apparent that there were large undeveloped areas that were not beginning to produce tax inccso in proportion to other areas, and the Commission wars further convinced that the building of the "Fort to Fort" Drive would help dovelop these undeveloped areas into greater residential use and help bring about a more balanced normal development of all the lend within the boundaries of the district* which for decades past has been so lop­ sided and uneconomic in completed whole trend of growth. Greater and more intensive use of land would naturally follow the building of a park­ was providing easy and accessibility intimate relationship between undeveloped areas and those sections already (more or less) intensively occupied

/■

/ / I s

by residences and other structures. This would also help hold

residential building in the city and greatly increases the tax in-

cease of the District. Further great importance and value of a Fort to Fort

Drive would result from the preservation of the sixteen Civil Uar

forts, both from the historical standpoint and the creation of

neighborhood park or recreational areas in sections already con­

gested, or other areas that are rapidly developing end will soon desire and need the preservation of the open Fort sites. It seems peculiarly fitting that in the nation's capital thorn should be preserved for (all) generations to come, the remains of those old forts which played such an Important part (in our history) during the Civil War. Fortunately many of them are well covered with trees, making them well adopted as a part of the "Fort to Fort" Drive and recreation system. As a matter of fact, the McMillan Commission of 1901 foresaw the city's ultimate growth and the imperative need of some type of roadwaya circumferential related to the preservation of those forts.

For some thirteen years the National Capital Park and Plan- ning Commission has devoted more tine to studying carefully the de- velopment of this "Fort to Fort" Drive and its related Fort sites and the' acquirement of the lands needed than it has to any other single project. Something in excess of two and a quarter million dollars has already been spent for the acquirement of the land for the Fort Drive proper, and none million dollars for the Fort areas and related park lan. 4

The neighborhood park and recreational made of the sections

near these fort sites have been carefully studied in relation to the "Fort to fort” Drive, with the result that in many cases it has been

possible to serve dual purposes.

Ths change and adaptation of certain street plans and grades in areas affected by the "fort to Fort* Drive have been carefully

surveyed through these years, and largely worked out to fit properly

into the ultimata establishment of the Fort Drive itself.

In other words, the whole conception of the ”Fort to Fort”

Drive and the preservation of the Forts themselves have been a very vital influence in many of the plans approved: and carried through by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia. ,

The greatest effort has been made to economize in the acquire- ment of land for purposes of thia fort drive. All of these years the

Commission has endeavored to keep ahead of building development, placing the order of purchases where it would save future greater cost of land acquirement. In a few instances where the coat of land or removal of buildings would be too great, existing principal streets have been used with the hope that ultimately a greater set-back of buildings may be obtained to give wide desireable open space on either side of the drive and afford a proper setting to this most important project of the city’s whole highway and street system. • 6 •

It does not seem sound business that the present generation

which has expended several million dollars in land acquirement

which is today largely of no value to the community, should be denied

the completion end enjoyment of this project. Adjoining owners along

thia drive who have been withholding their plans for many years for development of their property are certainly entitled to the earliest possible building of the drive itself. The land acquirement for the

- two years the District should have complete ownership of all the lands necessary for this great '’fort to Fort" Drive.

There are many stretches of the drive that could be immediately completed. For instance, for e length of 7.75 miles between Conduit

Road and Fort Totten, both acquisition and general development plans are entirely complete and one section is ready for letting of construc- X tiou contracts.

It would seem that in relative importance to any other items of expenditure throughout the District few projects would be of more benefit to the popple of Washington, and of more inspiration to the nation as a whole as people visit their Capital City, than the build- ing of this 25 1/2 mile parkway and boulevard drive which should imme- diately take its place as one of the most beautiful, interesting and useful drives to be found in any American city, and with dignity scale end magnitude appropriate to the city which is rapidly becoming the World's most beautiful Capital. 6

From the high points along this drive, distant views over the

city will ba possible - visitors taking this drive will imme-

diately get a comprehensive idea of the entire residential section of the District. It will enable those visitors, and even Washing-

tonians themselves, to see large areas now seldom enjoyed. It will

add real character, charm and value to the community as a whole. It

should help check the costly shifting and decline of neighborhoods.

It would give a sound basic framework for future growth. It will

unite ths District in a forceful, powerful manner, tending to bring

about immediate and needed development in areas of the Capital now

neglected. It will become a basic factor frat which much neighborhood

planning can ba intelligently done.

It will provide for our Capital City an outstanding parkway,

not an extravagant one, but ono with ample width for most of its dis­

tance, to have park-like character in striking contrast to the unfor-

tunately closely built up sections of much of the city. There is

serious need for a drive of such character in a city where so much of

Its area is given over to a rectangular street and block plan with unusually short lots end intensive occupancy of land by buildings.

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission believes that the increment of value resulting to nearby and adjacent areas and to the city as a whole justifies rapid completion of the "Fort

to Fort" Drive. - 7 -

Inasmuch as It will take a number of years to complete the entire 25 1/2 miles it seems almost imperative that a program of

not to exceed five years should be determined upon for the entire

building of this parkway, and some five (illegible) to be completed yearly and

brought Into immediate use, this program of completion could be

applied to the arena where benefits would be most immediate and where traffic relief is most necessary.

With the present rate of the growth of the capital city,

certainly by the end of five years the value will be fully demon-

strated as to this mots important project of the thirteen years work

of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

During this entire time there has never been the slightest objection to this project. It has received the Indorsement of Congress,

the local organizations of the city, the District Commissioners, and

all concerned. Many schools, recreation centers, and other public improvements have been located with due regard to the ultimate building of this parkway drive.

In comparison with other needs, there is no more important project before all authorities In our capital today than the initia- tion at once of the building of some important link of this drive in

order to sake the first demonstration to tho public of the value and

serious need of the whole project*

The announcement of a five year program for its completion will immediately command such wide approval, that every support will be

forthcoming for its building as rapidly as nay be consistent with the

allotment of funds for this purpose within a five year period. It will be a real achievement of which the whole United States may well be proud. Its value to the District Itself should be many times its total cost. Appendix RR

T.S. Settle, Secretary, Memorandum to Mr. Gillen, March 5, 1940, SUBJ: Fort Drive; U.S., Office of National Capital Parks. RG328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #1. March 5, 1940

MEMORANDUM TO MR. GILLEN:

SUBJECT: Fort Drive.

I am writing to answer your request that I give you briefly the historical background and present status of the Fort Drive.

For- 40 years those who have been planning the National Capital . have .envisioned a driveway connecting the Civil War forts, which also . , occupy the- high.points in the District of Columbia, thus giving a drive­ way, around'and'across .the city of great historic and scenic interest.

.Ths. McMillan-Commission in ita report to Congress in 1901 submitted one-report entitled "The Park System of the District of Columbia It outlined the .Fort Drive on pages 111 and 112, and more definitely located, such Fort Drive on Map D-28B, which vias made a part of that report. This map is reproduced in the Commission’s 1928 report on "Plane and Studios, Washington and Vicinity", Plato 16. Copy of report and plate are enclosed.

When the National Capital Park Commission was created in 1934, it was Instructed by Congress to map out a comprehensive park, parkway and playground system of the National Capital. It reviewed the McMillan. . plans, adopted many of them in principle, and of course brought them up- - to-date. Among the plans enthusiastically endorsed by the Commission was the Fort Drive. After several years of study, the Commission appeared before the Committees of the House and Donate and outlined a comprehensive plan for Washington and environs. This plan was included in the "Statement . Of Lieut. Col. U. S. Grant, 3d, Maj. Caroy H. Brown, and Charles Eliot, The detailed plans, including forts to bo acquired, showing roadway, etc., were clearly presented in Plate 21, which report and pluto are also enclosed The spokesman"for the Commission at that hearing set forth the plan and advantages of such a proposed drive ns follows:

"This map shows the Fort Drive (Plate XXI, 'Fort Drive') around Washington. On the second row of hills during the Civil War a system of fortifications was constructed which occupied the highest points on those hills. From ths point of view of scenery those forts dominate and command a large . portionof the Washington region. The conception of the com- mission was that these forts, extending around the City of Washington, should be connected by a great parkway, so that a Senator or Representative or visitor could get on that route at any point and come clean around the city and get the very finest views all the way around. That parkway would be about 23 miles long, and it should be wide enough to give the effect of a green strip all the way. We did not want to use it merely as a street. We wanted to make it a distinctive feature of the park system of the Capital."

These hearings led to the passage of the so called Capper- Cramton Act, approved May 29, 1930 (46 Stat. 482). Section 4 of this Act authorized an appropriate of $16,000,000 for acquiring lands suitable for the "park, parkway and playground system".

From year to year since the passage of this ACt, the Commissionhas gone to Congress and secured appropriations to acquire forts and connecting parkway/strips in general accord with Plate 21, referred toabove. The Commission has finally now reached the point where it ownsabout 95 percent of the land, and has funds on hand with which to buyor condemn the remainder. Within several weeks it will own a continuous parkway strip extending from the palisades of the Potomac on the south-west around the entire rim fo the city to the Anacostia River at theDistrict line on the southeast, acquired at a total cost of about$2,700,00.

The person who has led the fight for this great project, even through the years of the depression, has been our Chairman, Honorable Frederic A. Delano. He has stated repeatedly to the Bureau of the Budget and to Committees of Congress that be considered this one of the most important parts of the park, parkway and playground system of the National Capital and environs. He is now urging strongly that con- struction work be undertaken on a large scale. A small section of the roadway has been built at Fort Rano. Other sections have been graded by CCO workers through the Fort Dupont Park area. The Commission is now urging that some of the District gasoline tax fundsroadway be despentvelopm ent.for this ’ In addition to the historic and scenic attraction of the parkway it has great utilitarian value. Nothing is more needed in the circula- tory system of Washington than such a cross-town route as this Fort Drive will provide.

T.S. SETTLE, TSS/mhm Secretary. Appendix SS

“Fort Drive,” The Washington Evening Star. Saturday, November 16, 1940. THE EVENING STAR - November 16, 194-0

The Evening Star With Sunday Morning Edition. THEODORE W. NOYES, Editor.

WASHINGTON, D. C. SATURDAY November 16, 1940 Today the picture has changed. While the route itself remains the, The Evening Star Newspaper Company. same, growth of the city , and in- Main Office: 11th St and Pennsylvania Ave. New York Office: 110 East 42nd St. crease in the demands put upon the- Chicago Office: 436 North Michigan Ave. normal transportation routes avail- able have brought about a change in Delivered by Carrier—City and Suburban the concept of the future possibilities Regular Edition. Evening and-Sunday 75c per mo. or 18c per week of the Fort Drive, and it is con­ The - Evening Star:. 45c per mo. or 10c per week The Sunday Star 10c per copy ceived now as a double strip road­ Night Final Edition. way, free of grade crossings, by which ' Night Final and Sunday Star . 85c per month Night Final Star 60c per month crosstown and through traffic may Rural Tube Delivery. be accelerated and diverted around The Evening and Sunday Star 85c per month The Evenlng Star______65c per month the more congested sections of the The Sunday Star______10c per copy city. This plan is similar to the great Collections made at the end of each month or each week. Orders may be sent by mall or tele­ belt routes which have become phone National 5000. Identified in recent years with West­ Rate by Mall—Payable in Advance. chester. County, New York, although Daily and Sunday....1 yr- $12.00: 1 mo. $1.00 Daily only______1 yr. $8.00; 1 mo- 75c similar constructions are to be found Sunday only__.___.1 yr- $5.00: 1 mo. 50c in most large cities.

Entered as second-class matter post office. With ninety per cent of the neces- Washington. D. C. . sary land already acquired, and the Member of the Associated Press. Park and Planning Commission pre­ The Associated Press Is exclusively entitled to paring to ask' Congress for authori­ the use for republication of all news dispatches credited to It or not otherwise credited in this sation to begin work immediately on paper and also the local news published herein. All rights of publication of special dispatches two sections of the route, the District herein also are reserved. Commissioners have wisely decided to call a public hearing on the whole Fort Drive project. This will be preceded by I In the ten years in which plans submission of the planning commis- for the Fort Drive, one of Wash­ sion’s complete outline of the plan, ington’s major parkway develop­ including estimates of cost, which ments, have been taking shape great so far have been based largely on changes have come about both in personal opinions. These have varied community, park and transportation greatly, some ranging as high as needs and in methods of meeting $15,000,000. Co-operation of the cit­ them. When the plan for the drive izens of Washington in determining first was conceived it was pictured planning and financing policies in a as a strip of park connecting the project of such magnitude is most sites of the Civil War forts which desirable. It is a program. which were built in a ring on the heights, holds much promise, but which can defending the central part of the be carried out only through civic co­ city. A series of roadways through operation in laying foundations this strip was considered merely inci- which will stand the test of years dental and only for the purpose of in fulfilling the community’s re­ making the parks more accessible. quirements. Appendix TT

Memorandum from A.E. Demaray, Associate Director, National Park Service to the Secretary of the Interior, August 12, 1944, informing him that “The District Commissioners have advised the Planning Commission that they will undertake at this time with available planning funds, supplemented by an allocation from the public Roads Administration, the preparation of plans and specifications for two sections of the Fort Drive . . Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-57, 545-100 Fort Drive, Committee on. REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

r l ADDRESS ONLY WASHINGTON 25, D.C. August 12, 1944 . THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

MEMORANDUM for the Secretary.

When the National Capital Park and Planning Commission was first established in 1926 it realized the necessity of providing a ready means for the exchange of traffic between the various residential subdivisions that had grown up individual­ ly outside the L'Enfant plan and with little or no regard to the highway system of the city that he had planned. Fortunately, there was found a possibility for doing this at a moderate cost by a circumferential parkway about 23 miles in length Joining the old Civil War forts. Because the forts occupied commanding po­ sitions on hilltops, they had generally not been built on and were individually suitable for local parks with fine views, attractive old trees, and local historic interest. The forts and 98 percent- of the right of way have now been acquired. The construction of Fort Drive is believed to be of first importance and the popu­ lation recently has grown to the extent that the District Commissioners are pro- pared to undertake-actual construction of certain sections. Present conditions and the need for the interchange of traffic outside the congested central part of the city require that some-sections, when built, should be open to all kinds of traffic, whereas other sections could be limited to passenger vehicles. Manifest­ ly; it wouldbe advantageous to the Park Service if the cost of constructing and paving the roadway were accepted by the District Commissioners.

The: District Commissioners by letter dated July 29, copy attached,.have ad­ vised the Planning Commission that they will undertake at this time with available planning funds, supplemented by an allocation from the public Roads Administration, the preparation of plans and specifications for two sections of the Fort Drive as follows:

Section 1. McArthur Boulevard to Nebraska Avenue., Section 2. Oregon -Avenue at the west edge of Rock Creek Park to a point east of 14th street on the east side of the park. The section across Rock Creek Park would largely replace the existing military Road, whichi s under the jurisdiction of and maintained by the District Commission­ ers. This section would be a dual highway with a new bridge structure across “Rock Creek separating.Fort Drive from the park road system. On the east side of Bock Creek, it would involve mainly a new location and new construction to replace the present winding, narrow, and dangerous road. theAt August 4 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the prepa­ ration of plans for the two sections and to request the Commissioners, when addi­ tional planning funds become available, to proceed next with the preparation of Ians for that section of Fort Drive between Pennsylvania Avenue, . S. E., and inning Road, N. E. A general plan of the Fort Drive on which the three sections mentioned have been indicated is attached. ...-a . •*.» iu - > K iU.L.£) i\>O • nmiED exv±Eg '

In their letter to the Park and Planning Commission, the District Commission­ ers requested that the Planning Commission arrange for a meeting among representa­ tives of the national Park Service, the District Commissioners, and the Planning Commission to agree upon the necessary procedure for conducting the surveys and preparing the plana and specifications to assure their approval. Regarding the Fort Drive section across Rock Creek Park, the District Com- missioners, also wish to be assured that, upon completion of its construction, such sections outside of the present right of way would be transferred to the Jurisdic­ tion of the District of Columbia. ; In return, the Commissioners would transfer to the jurisdiction of hte Park Service those sections of the existing Military Road outside of the new Fort Drive, including the present bridge and approaches to the park road system. Sections of the roadway no longer required would be restored to their original condition and would revert to park lands. Military Road as a district .street is now open to both passenger and commercial traffic and this new section of Fort Drive would remain open to all types of traffic The section of Fort Drive from McArthur Boulevard (old Conduit Road) to Nebraska Avenue is an essential section of the general plan and would form a con- tinuous section from McArthur Boulevard to Wisconsin Avenue as Nebraska Avenue is incorporated in the Fort Drive. The park lands which the Fort Drive would occupy were acquired by the Planning Commission for that purpose, and became a part of the park system of the National Capital as do all lands acquired by the Commission for park, parkway, and playground purposes. As the need for an adequate traffic outlet from Nebraska Avenue to McArthur Boulevard is now a pressing need, repre sentatives of the District Commissioners advised the Planning Commission that, un­ less this section of Fort Drive is approved, it would be necessary for them to wideband re-align.the.-old Chain Bridge Road which borders the parkway lands on the west. Old Chain Bridge-Road,narrow- and winding with steep grades, and its widening and re-alignment on its present ridge location would be difficult and would be quite destructive of the ridge. The valley location is less destructive of natural values, However, at the time that you were Administrator of Public Works, the District Commissioners submitted a request for an allotment of PWA funds for the construction of this section of the Fort Drive. Several adjoining property owners, including the late Raymond Clapper, protested its construction and at that time you refused to make the allotment. I recommend that you approve the National Park Service participating in the conference requested by the District Commissioners for the purpose of reaching the necessary agreements for the construction of two sections of the Fort Drive as postwar projects when funds shall have been made available to the Commission­ ers of the District of Columbia, One of the conditions of the agreement would be that the National Park Service shall collaborate with the District Highway Engineer with regard to all phases of the location surveys, the .architectural design of bridges and other structures, including retaining walls and guard walls, the rate and shape of slopes in cuts and fills and the landscape development of the right­ of-way. | (SGD.) A. E. DEMARAY Enclosure 544. Associate Director. Approved: (SGD) H.L.I. cc: Natl Capital Park & Planning Commission Director’s Office Secretary of the Interior. 2 Appendix UU

“Memorandum of Agreement of October 24, 1944 Between the National Park Service and the District of Columbia Relating to Development of Two Sections of Fort Drive.” Historical Collections, Rock Creek Park, National Park Service. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ORDERS Part *170 Agreements with District of Coluntia Chapter 6 General Section 1.1 Page a

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT OF OCTOBER 24, 1944 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SECTIONS OF FORT DRIVE

Memorandum of cooperative agreement made this 24th day of October, 1944, by and between the National Park Service and the Government of the District of Columbia hereby provides the fol­ lowing stipulations for the development of two sections of the Fort Drive as hereinafter specified:

Section 1. MacArthur Boulevard to Nebraska Avenue, less the proposed structure at the latter point;

Section 2. That section of Military Road, less the inter­ section developed at Oregon Avenue, from Oregon Avenue to a point east of 14th Street where the Fort Drive turns to the north.

WHEREAS the construction of the sections of Fort Drive named herein are considered desirable in providing additional and im­ proved traffic and highway facilities in the District of Columbia; and

WHEREAS the park lands which Section 1 of the proposed Fort Drive will occupy were acquired by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission for that purpose; and

WHEREAS Section 2 across Rock Creek Park which will replace a corresponding section of existing Military Road by eliminating the present winding, narrow and inadequate Military Road with a dual highway incorporating a new bridge structure across Rock Creek separating, but connecting indirectly, Fort Drive with the park road system; and

WHEREAS the Government of the District of Columbia is now prepared to undertake at this time the preparation of plans and specifications and at a later date consider construction of the two sections of Fort Drive covered by this agreement; and

WHEREAS the Government of the District of Columbia is also prepared to undertake at this time as a separate project by the District Government, an extension of Section 2 from the eastern terminus of Section 2 to 13th Street; and

WHEREAS the National Park Service desires to lend every pos­ sible assistance toward the furtherance and construction of the Fort Drive; and *

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ORDERS Part 170 Agreements with District of Columbia Chapter 6 General Section 1.1 Page b

WHEREAS the National Capital Park and Planning Commission having approved on August 4, 1944, the suggested preparation of working plans and specifications for the two sections of Fort Drive covered by this agreement:

NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the premises and the several promises to be performed as hereinafter set forth, the Government of the District of Columbia and the National Park: Service do hereby mutually agree as follows:

ARTICLE I. The Park Service will make available and subse­ quently transfer to the Jurisdiction of the Government of the District of Columbia for highway purposes a right-of-way across Rock Creek Park and other park lands as may be later determined sufficient to construct that portion of Section 2 between Oregon Avenue and a point east of 14th Street where the Fort Drive turns to the north. It is intended by the parties to this agreement that the transferred- right-of-way will become a part of the high­ way system of the District of Columbia under the Jurisdiction of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and shall be under their control and regulation as to traffic use, underground con­ struction, etc., the same as in other city streets. Following construction, the area transferred as herein agreed to will be maintained by the District.

ARTICLE II. The Commissioners will transfer to the juris­ diction of the National Park Service those sections of the existing Military Road outside of the New Fort Drive not occupied by the Fort Drive right-of-way, including the present bridge across Rock Creek and approaches into the park road system, ob­ literating and restoring such portions of Military Road as are not required for Fort Drive right-of-way purposes, provided existing underground utilities and other essential structures now in line of existing Military Road will be allowed to remain and continue in service. Following transfer of sections of existing Military Road and present bridge across Rock Creel:, the area transferred will, be maintained by the Park Service.

ARTICLE III. The National Park Service and the Government of the District of Columbia will consult with each other during all stages of planning and construction, collaborating with each other with regard to all phases of reconnaissance_and preliminary surveys to establish a location that is satisfactory to the Government of the District of Columbia and the National Park Service. The tentative location both as to grade and alignment will be in accordance with the preliminary plans of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ORDERS Part 170 Agreements with District of Columbia Chapter 6 General Section 1.1 , Page c

ARTICLE IV. When making field surveys and in the prepara­ tion of plans, the general road location, the width of roadway, the width of surfacing, the character and standards of alignment and grade, and the location and layout of access roads will be determined jointly by the Government of the District of Columbia and the National Park Service.

ARTICLE V. The size of drainage structures, the elevation of grade lines across water courses, the depth of surfacing, the character and size of foundations, structural design of bridges, and all phases of improvements which affect the integrity of the proposed construction are features for which the Government of the District of Columbia will be primarily responsible.

ARTICLE VI. The architectural design of bridges and other structures, including retaining walls and guard walls, the rate and shape of slopes in cuts and fills, the landscape development of the right-of-way, the location and design of park areas and overlooks are features for which the National Park Service will be primarily responsible.

ARTICLE VII. The contract plans and specifications will be prepared by the Government of the District of Columbia and will include such architectural and landscape plans and specifications prepared by the National Park Service which may be deemed neces­ sary.

ARTICLE VIII. Plans and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of the National Park Service.

ARTICLE IX. During the period of construction, the National Park Service will make such inspections of the work as may be desirable.

ARTICLE X. Minor alterations which are authorized under the contract without a modification thereof and which are deemed necessary during the progress of the work may be ordered by the Government of the District of Columbia.

ARTICLE XI. When a project is nearing completion, the Government of the District of Columbia will notify the National Park Service when the final inspection is to be made, allowing ample time for the contractor to complete the construction of any item recommended in the preliminary inspection. Final in- spection shall be performed by the Government of the District of Columbia officials in company with the National Park Service COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION ORDERS Part 170 Agreements with District of Columbia Chapter 6 General Section 1.1 * Page d

officials. If, upon final inspection, the project has been com­ pleted according to plans, the National Park Service will submit a written statement that the work has been performed in a satis­ factory manner and is acceptable to the National Park Service.

ARTICLE XII. An allotment of funds will be made available by the Government of the District of Columbia to the National Park Service to cover the cost of its share in the preparation of plans and specifications and necessary inspections. The amount allotted to the National Park Service shall be mutually determined.

That where ever in this agreement the Government of the District of Columbia or the National Park Service are referred .to, the term shall include their duly authorised representatives.

(SGD) A. E. DEMARAY______

Acting Director National Park Service

APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SITTING AS A BOARD

October 24 1944

(SGD) D. M. THORNETT______

Secretary, Board of Commissioners Appendix W

Paul P. Cret to Gilmore Clarke, May 22, 1945, and Gilmore Clarke to Paul P. Cret, May 25, 1945, pertaining to the Committee on Transportation of the Washington Chapter, A.I.A. report suggesting a double ring road system, either by elevated or subway road and its relationship to Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS MAY 17, 1910

GILMORE D. CLARKE. Chairman WILLIAM F. LAMB HENRY V. POOR PAUL P. CRET RALPH STACKPOLE JOHN A. HOLAB1RD DAVID E. FINLEY

• • H. P. CAEMMERER. Seactary 'OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, INTERIOR DEPARTMENT BUILDING. WASHINGTON. D. C.

1518 Walnut Street Philadelphia 2, Pa. '.

PERSONAL 22 May 1945

Hon. Gilmore Clarke 10 Rockefeller Plaza New York 20, New-York

Dear Gilmore:

I read the Report of the Committee on Transportation of the Washington Chapter, A.I.A. I wonder what you think of it? Excluding the reports of visits to various agencies given in appendices, it is a very brief document and to me, a very vague one. The meat of it (even in these days of restrictions,) is a short portion.

(1) They don’t like the Greiner-DeLeuw Report

(2) They suggest a double ring road system, either by elevated or subway roads with connections to some avenues and streets

In regard to (1), the F.A. has expressed a number of objections to the same report and it may be agreed with the A.I.A. Committee that it is, at best, a patching up of present conditions.

The recommendations of paragraph 6 in the absence of illustrations, seem rather of doubtful value for the Washington plan. The ring system is quite adaptable to those cities, like Paris or London, which have grown by successive concentric growths, but not particularly well suited to a rigidly set plan like Washington’s, ending at the barrier of the Potomac and the Virginia territory. The report is silent as to serving the area South of the Mall, and on many other interesting points. To avoid the. issues as the report does, makes it not more than a pious wish to get something better than was presented so far. The report condemns subways in paragraph 9, after suggesting "ring roads at a different level from the avenuesand streets...... and streets passing over or under the ring roads.”

All this does not make much of a proposal. What do you think?

Sorry you were not at the Institute of Arts and Letters ceremonial to present the bevy of young girls who have reported on the development of the Capital. Sincerely yours,

PPC/p Paul P. Cret t

REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

,x

May 25th, 1945

Honorable Paul P. Cret The Commission of Fine Arts r.: Interior Department Building Washington, D. C.

Dear Paul -

Thank you for yours of the 22nd. I received a copy of the Report of the Committee on Transportation of the Washington Chapter A.I.A., but I have not had an opportunity . to read it. Your letter has not stimulated me to do so, since you have given me the meat of it. I subscribe to the sentiments expressed with respect to the Greiner-DeLeuw Report. I don’t like it either. From what I gather from the gossip with those who are reviewing the Report, there is little like­ lihood that it will be adopted. . I was interested in item #2 of your letter concern­ lag the suggestion of a double ring road system either by elevated or subway roads. I would respectfully suggest to our architect friends in Washington that they "stick to their knitting” .. "some of the least of these, our brethren.” You will recall that the Planning Commission for years has strongly advocated the construction of a so-called Fort Drive. This would form one element in a circumferential system, and, as you probably know, a considerable amount has already been acquired for it. My own judgment is that the Planning Commission has never viewed this Fort Drive as important an element as it would be if properly planned. A long time ago I advocated making this Drive for six lanes of traffic, - three in...each direction, separated by a mall. They have always in­ sisted on two lanes in each direction which, in my opinion, is thoroughly inadequate. The Planning Commission in Washington is always about ten years behind the times. You will recall they have advocated a six-lane bridge across the Potomac, whereas we support the principle of eight lanes, with two ' bridges. I was down in Washington a week ago today to testify on behalf of two four-lane bridges, and I was in good company, for Mr. MacDonald, Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads, and Captain Whitehurst, of the Office of the District Commissioner, proceeded me, and each one made a good case for the two bridges.

OVER REPRODUCED at the national archives

- 2 -

I shall read the A.I.A, Report end if anything further occurs to me, I shall write to you. I, too, regret I was not at the ceremonial of the Institute of Arts and Letters last week. You see I had to be in Washington looking after the bus­ iness of the Commission of Fine Arts. Uy wife was there, however, and told me all about the occasion.

Sincerely yours,

Gilmore D. Clarke Appendix WW

Budget Officer and Assessor, District of Columbia, “Acquisition of Land,” January 21, 1947. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, Fort Drive #2. 1 : . ,

z * ■ C

'v' January 21, 1947 £

TO THE COMMISSIONERS:

SUBJECT: Acquisition of Land

This District Budget Officer and the District Assessor have been giving careful study to the land problem in the District, which is causing them the greatest concern. We are faced with this dilemma:

On the one hand, some additional land is needed by the District Govern­ ment for urgent municipal purposes; on the other hand, the amount of publicly-owned land in the District is already so great that it is ■■■' ■ threatening to wreck, our finances and blight the City of Washington. Need for District-Owned Land.

. Within the next decade most of the vacant land around the margin of the District will be built up. The new population will demand schools, playgrounds, police and fire stations; public libraries, and so;forth, for which land must be acquired by the District. Also within the presently. built-up area there are sections of the city with inadequate school and playground areas, etc. Land for these purposes must certainly

Exorbitant Public Ownership of Land. At the same time, the. situation as to publicly-owned and non-taxable land has reached and passed the danger point. There are 30,999 acres of land area in the District excluding streets and alleys. Of this amount

12,990 acres are owned by the Federal Government 1,050 acres'are owned by -2 -

/ ’ ...... ~..mu’ Ml_• y-VA.iCr*t;• ryi the District of Columbia for its schools, playgrounds, reservoirs, police

stations and the like; and 1,739 acres privately owned are tax exempt.

This leaves only 15,220 which are taxable, or 49% of the total. Fifty- one percent is tax exempt.

This non-taxable land has increased at an alarming rate. in 1935

it was only 43% as against 51% today. Unless the process is arrested and reversed, the increasing tax load on the remaining land will drive our citizens out of the District. Well-to-do persons will move across

the line, whereby we will lose their income taxes, personal property

taxes and inheritance taxes. Retail outlets will follow them, causing a

decay of the large -business districts which carry so much of the city's

finances. (The Northwest downtown business district alone pays 23% of

all realty taxes, besides many other taxes, and the margin of its income which means prosperity comes from our upper and middle, income bracket

citizens). Land in the District will still be occupied, indeed; but more and more it will be occupied by persons in low income brackets and the indigent, who cannot carry the city’s finances.

Five years ago the population of the outer Metropolitan Area was 46% of the District population, It is estimated that by 1965 it will be 79%, Unless’ radical remedial action is taken, the District will some day

be 'converted into a suburb of the Metropolitan Area housing its poorest

inhabitants, with a core of magnificent public buildings and national

monuments in the midst of it. It is the Federal Government which has taken and is taking the bulk

of the land. Its 13,000 acres of holdings represent 42% of our available land area. Of this, 7,711' acres are park land under the jurisdiction of

one or another Federal Department.

A Final Solution. A final solution means the recapture from the Federal Government

of large areas of land which are serving no public purpose that justifies

their retention in the heart of a "great metropolis; together with reme­ dial action regarding sone of the privately-owned tax-exempt land. This

final solution has many angles. We are here presenting only one, but a

vitally important one.

A Partial- Solution: Fort Drive

(MarchForty-six 8 years 1901) ago the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing the Senate Committee of the District of Columbia to consider

and report on lands for developing and improving the park system of the

District of Columbia. This has resulted in the acquisition of large areas of park land, much of which is proper for the purposes and should not be disturbed. . It also resulted in the genesis and growth of a project of which

few of our citizens have heard, although it has already cost them millions,

which we consider chimerical and useless: namely, Fort Drive.

Fort Drive conceived as a boulevard around the outer fringes of the District, connecting the civil war forts. It was probably modeled

after similar pleasure boulevards developed in some European cities, in

the nineteenth century. It may have made sense, from the viewpoint of . fifty years ago. It mates no sense today. Fort Drive as planned would be approximately 21.50 miles long. It

would be a "freeway" — that is, with no grade intersections. Its route

passes through the center of built-up housing developments in many parts of the city and intersects great numbers of streets. At each intersec-

tion there must be expensive grade separations. Three years ago-the

Highway Department estimated it would cost $35,000,000. Today it would cost far more. • :• The land acquired for the Drive out of District money connecting

the forts and batteries comprises 723.68 acres and the land for the forts

and batteries comprises 528.99 acres, or a total of 1252.67 acres. The

cost to date amounts to approximately $4,000,000, and additional acqui- sitions to complete the land purchases will amount to approximately $600,000.

Fort Drive, in our opinion, never will be built because there is

no need for it and there will be no money for it. The Highway Depart­ ment; and its expert consultants have just completed a comprehensive high­

way program for the District. The projects of first and second urgency

In this program will cost $30,500,000 and will use up all the money in sight for eight years. The third priority projects will cost $17,700,000

and use all the money for another five years. The fourth priority, have not been estimated, but will be very costly and may take many additional

finish.years to In all. this program there is no word of Fort Drive. The

Department’s expert consultants found that it had no bearing on theDis — strict's traffic problems. Is it likely that we will live to see a project built which would absorb every cent of the District ’s available highway­

funds for a decade and contribute nothing whatsoever to solving our urgent traffic problem?

The forts could still be retained, and each of them is readily accessible by excellent highways. The occasional enthusiast who wanted to make a tour of all of them could use existing and proposed regular high- ways without any appreciable loss of time, as the mileage involved is

approximately the same as the Fort Drive route . Release of the land would be immensely beneficial to the District,

It would probably solve some of our problems of needed land for new schools, playgrounds/recreational areas and the like in the newly developing parts of the city and a few sections would be useful for highways that fit into the modern and up-to-date plan just proposed. The rest could be returned to taxation and would provide more home sites for our citizens who are migrating across the line, taking their taxpaying resources with them. It is recommended that Congress be asked to abandon the Fort Drive project as such and authorize’ the use of the land for more practical purposes. '

Budget Officer, D. C,

Assessor, D. C. Appendix XX

Appendix B, January 23-24, 1947, relating to the action of the National Capital Park and Planning commission regarding the proposals made by the Budget Officer and the Assessor of the District of Columbia that the Fort Drive Project be abandoned. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. COPY ■ . Appendix B, January 23-24,1947.

Action of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission regarding the proposals made by the Budget Officer and the ssessor of the District of Columbia that the Fort Drive Project be abandoned and parts of the area be sold for private development.

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission has read with amazement the report of the D.C.Budget Officer and the Assessor submitted to the District Commissioners on January 21, 1947, branding the Fort Drive Project as "chimerical" and "useless", making "no sense today”, and further recommend­ ing "that Congress be asked to abandon the Fort Drive project as such and authorize the use of the land fo;r more practical purposes." This Commission was created by Act of Congress in 1926, and for 20 jears has been giving careful and expert study to the needs of this Nation’s Capital, and finds itself in complete disagreement with the above-quoted findings and recommendations of the D.C.Budget Officer and Assessor. V/e realize that each of these officials is good in his present official position but has made a most unfortunate and unwise recommendation in this particular excursion into city planning. The Commission reiterates its opinion and judgment that the Fort Drive was a noble and practical conception; that it has been before the public and before Congress for many, many years and received the approval of both; that it is more needed than ever before; that the Congress in considering the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, gave special consideration to this as one of the projects which would be acquired out of the $16,000,000 authorized to be spent in the District of Columbia, and that Congress has appropriated money year by year to acquire certain sections of the Fart Drive. The Commission is convinced that the Fort Drive, being in effect a limited access circumferential dual roadway, will increasingly sorve as an essential part of the thoroughfare system channeling to its pi’opcr destination with little friction a flood of traffic which otherwise would be forced unwillingly and obnoxiously through already congested streets of the city. Funds for its construction will come fran the gasoline tax, as previously agreed. TZhen the bill sponsored by the District Commissioners for an additional cent gasoline tax was before the Senate and House Committees for consideration, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission was one of the very few agencies that supported the Commissioners in recommending that ± this tax be increased. The then Chairman, Mr. Frederic A. Delano? and other representatives of the Commission appeared specially before the Senate Sub­ committee headed by Senator Burton, of Ohio, and at great length explained the value of the Fort Drive, its legal status, and that part of the increased gas tax would go for its construction. This was agreed to by the District Government. This bill was passed a few days after Pearl Harbor and therefore no construction has been undertaken. Plans for certain sections have been developed by the District Highway Department, and only yesterday, the Commission considered detailed construction plans submitted by the D.C.Highway Department for that part of the Fort Drive extending from Oregon Avenue to Missouri Avenue. Therefore, if legislation to abandon What Congress has already authorited, and the District Commissioners in the past have agreed to, is introduced, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission will vigorously oppose such legislation, and will continue to press for an orderly progressive development of this much needed circumferential, traffic-distribution roadway. A further statement refuting in detail the arguments proposing abandonment of this project will be submitted when prepared. Appendix YY

Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, The Commission on Fine Arts, to Honorable John Russell Young, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, March 6, 1947. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. THE'COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS • MAY • 17, 1910 GILMORE D. CLARKE. Chairman DAVID E. FINLEY MAURICE STERNE • WILLIAM T. ALDRICH FREDERICK V. MURPHY L. ANDREW REINHARD LEE LAWRIE H. F. CAEMMERER, Secretary

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT BUILDING WASHINGTON • March 6, 1947.

Dear Commissioner Young;

- At a recent meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, consideration was given to a report that your committee which is endeavoring to seek sources for increasing the revenue of the District of Columbia would favor the abandonment of the Fort Drive, so that the land may be sold to individuals for private construction purposes.

Since the Fort Drive has become one of the most important in the Plan for Metropolitan Washington, the Commission of Fine Arts would regard its abandonment a short-sighted policy, and unanimously disapprove the idea.

The Fort Drive was made one of the distinct plans of the McMillan Park Commission of 1901, which in their Report (Senate Report No.166, Fifty-seventh Congress, 1st Session) stated on page 111;

With the forts indicated on the map------Stevens, Totten,Slemmer, Bunker Hill and Thayer---- and with such other small parks and viewpoints as may be selected later, a northern park circuit of great interest would thus be formod,.having views off into the country in contrast with the principal inner circuit of larger parks, presenting views chiefly south toward the city. "In the section east of the Anacostia a similar chain of hilltop forts murks the points of most commanding view. Sith the Anacostia and the Potomac below and the city of Washington spread out beyond and the hills of Virginia in the distance, these are the most beautiful of the broad views to be had in the District. It would be "a drive comparable in beauty with that along the Potomac Palisades, but utterly different in character."

The forts and batteries erected for the defense of the National Capital have been of great historic interest. The Centennial History of Washington (1892) states concerning them, on page 256; The fortifications thus commenced on the 25th of May, 1861, subsequently became of immense extent, and together with those on the other side of Washington, consisted of forty eight works, mounting three hundred guns. The entire circumscribing perimeter of these fortifications was about thirty-five miles in length.

Then the Commission of Fine Arts was established by Congress in 1910, the Commission became custodian of the McMillan Park Commission plans, and during the past 37 years have regarded the Fort Drive as one of the pending projects for ’’Future Washington.” The need for the Fort Drive as a circumferential drive for the City of Washington became manifest soon after World War I, when, because of the rapid growth of the city, a preliminary plan for parkways in the metropolitan area of Washington was recommended (Map showing part of the Fort Drive, dated 1922 in the Commission Rooms). in the year 1919, the Commission of Fino Arts were in consultation with the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on the subject, and as a result they recommended----

"to the District Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives legislation to authorize a survey and the preparation of a plan- for a continuous parkway to connect the sites of the principal forts in the chain of Civil War defenses, east, north, and west of the city."

The Commission expressed the hope that the plan would materialize, and a bill was reintroduced in the Sixty-seventh Congress on April 25, 1921 by Representative Focht (By request of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia). (See Ninth Report of the Commission of Fine Arts, 1919-1921, page 111).

In 1924 Congress created the National Capital Park Commission and placed in its hands $600,000 to begin the work of saving park areas within the District of Columbia. By the terms of the Act, it was required that proposed land purchases must be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for advice. Progress in requiring land for the Fort Drive was made almost immediately, as is shown by the follo?/ing statement, which appears in the Tenth Report of the Commission of Fine Arts (1921-1925), page 35:

"The citizens’ movement to connect with a boulevard the Civil War defenses of Washington was incorporated in the plan of 1901. Those defenses, occupying strategic positions, are capable of being turned into small parks of high excellence and availability, and a connecting boulevard would have an added historic interest. Of these so-called forts a number are already in possession of the Government. During the your the Park Commission, with the hearty approval of this Commission, purchased Fort Stevens, near Georgia Avenue, where during General Early's raid, on July 12, 1864, President Lincoln was under fire until ordered to the rear by the officer in command."

The rapid growth of the National Capital made the necessity for a circumferential highway, as proposed by the Fort Drive, more and more apparent, connecting in particular the Anacostia Park with Rock Creek park across the northerly portion of the District of Columbia. It was recalled that the McMillan Park Commission had recommended a "cross town" driveway, designated the "Savannah Parkway" to extend from the Soldiers' Home to Rock Greek Park, but the area was turned over to private enterprise during the years 1902-1910, and the resulting deplorable condition for cross town traffic in that section of the city is well known.

In 1926 Congress created the National Capital Park and Pluming Commission, which, with the advice of the Commission of Fine Arts, has year by year been acquiring land for the Fort Drive , and during these past twenty years practically all the land needed for the Fort Drive has been purchased. There has boon a corresponding increase in tax values of land along the Fort Drive that more than ju3tifios this investment.

The recent War delayed construction work on the Fort Drive, and the tremendous development in the metropolitan area of the City of Washington has again emphasized the groat necessity for it in order to facilitate "cross town" traffic. It should be noted that when the City of Washington numbers 2,000,000 inhabitants, which it is certain to have in another century, this circumferential driveway will be a part of the city proper (just as in Mexico City today), and to repeat the misfortune which resulted from the abandonment of the Savannah Parkway plan, heretofore mentioned, would be most deplorable and for which those in authority in this generation would be justly condemned.

The Fourteenth Report of the Commission of Fine Arts (1940-1944) reported at length on the Fort Drive, page 40, as follows;

"The Commission of Fine Arts arc thoroughly in accord with the Planning Commission’s basic scheme for the Fort Drive. We believe that this circumferential artery will form a most important trafficway in the District of Columbia network. While we believe that it should maintain its identity as a ’drive’, which terra connotes a limited speed for vehicles, we realize, nevertheless, that it will serve as a principal means for diverting traffic from many of the congested city streets of the city and hence serve primarily as a link in the major highway network, rather than merely as a drive for pleasure-bound motorists. "It is our understanding that the Fort Drive is designed for two separate drives of two lanes each. In view of the experience of the Chairman of this Commission in problems of this nature and in line with his suggestion, we respectfully urge that careful study be given to the design of this drive for six rather than for four lanes. "Drives of this character serve to develop large volumes of traffic over and above that which it is normally expected will use this type of improvement; this has been the experience on similar projects in the Mew York area over a period of more than 20 years. As a result of this experience, this Commission believe that the Fort Drive should bc made adequate for the future demands of traffic which is bound to develop and we consequently suggest that consideration be given to planning for two additional lanes of pavement."

The Commission of Fine Arts realize the predicament that confronts the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in not having adequate revenue to meet the growing needs of the National Capital. But, needless to say, to abandon the Fort Drive would be very unwise, since it would add to confusion of traffic problems in future years.

The Commission of Fine Arts believe the time has come when revenues for the District of Columbia should revert to the 50-50 basis ,which obtained here for many years,in order to provide properly for this World Capital. For the Commission of Fine Arts; Sincerely your3, Honorable John Russell Young, President, Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Gilmore D. Clarke, Washington, D.C. Chairman. Appendix ZZ

Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts, to Commissioner John Russell Young, President, Board of commissioners, District of Columbia, March 21, 1947, and Commissioner John Russell Young, President, Board of commissioners, District of Columbia, to Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts, April 4, 1947, relating to the fate of Fort Drive. Record Group 66, Entry 17, Project Files, 1910-52, Fort Drive. COPY THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Washington

March 21, 1947

Dear Commissioner Young,

At a recent meeting & report was brought to the attention of this Commission indicating that the .-Budget Offioar and. .the ' Assessor -of . the ..District of . Columbia 'Government have recommended the abandonment of the so-called Fort Drive project, and the re­ capture of lands already Acquired .by the Federal Government for this project for use by the District for ”nev» schools, playgrounds, recreational areas and the like” and the "rest returned-to taxa­ tion.”

The Commission of Fine Arts were distressed when they learned of these recommendations since the Fort Drive project has been an important element in the Plan of Washington over since the Senate Park Commission of 1901 suggested it; as a mat­ ter of fact, this Commission has advocated the construction of this Important project from the ti»e of the establishment of The Commission of Fine Arts In 1910. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission arranged for the purchase of lands for the Fort Drive over a period of more than twenty years, with the ad­ vice and the approval of The Commission of Fine Arts.

The Commission of Fine Arts are heartily in accord with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission’s basic scheme for the Fort Drive in asmuch as we confidently believe that this proposed circumferential artery will form one of the most Im­ portant elements In the highway network of the District of Columbia. While it is our judgment that the project should maintain its identity as a ”drive", which connotes a restricted — speed for passenger motor vehicles, we realise nevertheless, that it will serve as a principal means for diverting passenger car traffic eround the City and away from many of the congested streets and avenues thus to serve as a fundamental link end by­ pass in the major arterial highway network. To state that this Fort Drive project is "chimerical end useless” is, in our judg­ ment, a most short sighted and narrow point of view on the part of responsible public officials. I.

/Commies io nerYoung March 11, 1947

The Commission, of Fine Arts realize the situation which confronts the Commissioners of the District of Columbia with respect to municipal finances.To abandon the Fort Drive how- ever, would be of no material help in the solution of this problem; it would serve only to lower present land values in the vicinity of the proposed Drive, since the desirable open park spaces would be eliminated, and prevent forever the real- far-sighted officials with long ex- perience in city improvement problems confidently believe to be of paramount importance in the development of the City of Washington.

. ' - ; .: ■■■"■' './•- ■' The Commission of Fine Arts believe that the solution of the problems related to municipal finances cannot be solved by such palliatives as the use of the Fort Drive lands for purposes other than that for which they were acquired or for their sale. Therefore the Commission trust that a further study of this, problem on the part of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia will result in their continued support of the Fort Drive as a fundamental and important element in the plan of Washington. '

For the Commission of Fine Arts: • Sincerely yours,

Gilmore D. Clarke Chairman

.7-t

* u Honorable John Russell Young, ».•> :v • President, Board of Commissioners ✓ of the District of Columbia Washington,D.C.

,-v IT,', board of commissioners

JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRESIDENT * GUY MASON EXECUTIVE OFFICES GORDON R.YOUNG BRIG GEN A.U.S. WASHINGTON 4, D. C.

G. M. TMORNETT SECRETARY April 4, 1947.

Honorable Gilmore D. Clarke, Chairman The Commission of Fine Arts Interior Department Building Washington, D. C.

My dear Mr. Clarke:

I have your letter of March 11 regarding Fort Drive, and greatly appreciate your interest in our transportation problems.

The District Commissioners have taken no formal action in the matter of restricting or abandoning the Fort Drive project. The Director of Highways recently submitted, for the Commissioners’ approval, a long-term project for comprehensive highway developments to meet the new conditions in the District. As an element of this he recommended that certain major projects for which there was no immediate need, including. Fort Drive, be made the subject of a cooperative study by a group of interested agencies. The District Commissioners have approved this recommendation and are organizing a Committee to make the study. You may be sure that Fort Drive will be included in the study, and that careful consideration will be given the views of your Commission.

In my personal opinion, if the Fort Drive project has become increasingly questionable in the minds of many practical men and respon­ sible interests in Washington, its advocates have only themselves to thank. During the past seven years there has been a revolutionary change in the size and distribution of population in Washington and the Metropolitan Area. The permanent addition to the Area’s population is nearly 500,000 persons. Immense housing developments have been made east of the Anacostia, in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, and in Arlington County. Numbers of these new citizens contribute to-the morning and evening peak traffic in central Washington.

Obviously there must be a recasting of our entire transport net to care for this unexampled growth. The major elements of the net must be, first a system of radial highways focusing on the central area; somewhat less important, an inner belt and lateral system; and of still less importance, although desirable in some form, "an outer belt. The Plan of the Director of Highways is based on this concept.

It has been claimed that Fort Drive would perform the functions of an outer belt in the system. Granting this for the sake of argument, it would still be only one element of the integrated net, and not the most important one. Yet certain advocates of the Drive apparently refuse -2- to recognize this. Their reaction to the overall plan of the High­ way Department has been primarily negative. They have maintained that it is impossible to make a highway plan without further lengthy study, and the collection of more data in addition to the immense amount already collected. They hold that, until this is done, individual highway projects cannot even be considered. Yet in the one particular case of Fort Drive, they do not hesitate to recommend it unreservedly, although its advocates have never even attempted to apply to it the detailed traffic checks and other studies which they demand for all other projects.

Fort Drive, as planned, would cost today about $35,000,000. This equals the total sum which we have available for major highway improve­ ments over the next twelve years.

The Committee mentioned above, which will, study the long-term major projects, will, approach Fort Drive with an open mind and deal with it on its merits. The National Capital Park & Planning Commission have been invited to cooperate in this study and have accepted. We hope for valuable and positive suggestions from them. But the Commissioners have the res­ ponsibility of doing something prompt and practical about our increasingly critical traffic situation, with the very limited funds at'their disposal. They cannot commit themselves to any single project save as an element of an integrated highway system, planned and scheduled with due regard to the city’s growth, the flow of traffic, and the money available.

I feel sure that you will not consider these remarks in any s ense as a reflection on the Fine Arts Commission. We have the warmest appre­ ciation of your interest and labors in the city’s behalf, and shall continue to count on your help and constructive criticism. This letter is motivated merely by my wish to place before you the entire picture as it presents itself to my mind. ' ,

With warmest personal regards,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG President Board of Commissioners, D. C. Appendix AAA

Stanley McClure, Assistant Chief, National Memorials and Historic Sites Section, National Capital Parks, NPS, to Messers. Kelly, Thompson, Gartside, Jett and Sager, May 24, 1954, SUBJ: Preservation of the Civil War Forts, 1952-54. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 543-36, Civil War Forts, Preservation of.

President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, to U.S. Grant, III, June 11, 1958, concerning the construction of the Fort Drive. Record Group 351, Entry 21, General files, 1924­ 68, 7-092, Box 329. REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Major General U. S. Grant. Ill . 1135 - 21st Street, N. W. Washington, D.C.

Dear General Grant:

Reference is made to your recent call at the offices of the Board of Commissioners, D.C. concerning the construction of the Circumferential Highway within the District of Columbia known as "Fort Drive". You left a brochure entitled "Washington Needs the Fort Memorial Freeway" and requested that you be ad­ vised regarding any action which could be taken by the District of Columbia to advance the construction of it.

While the brochure indicates that Fort Drive is to be con­ structed as a freeway, presumably to serve all traffic, we have been under the impression that most of it was to be constructed as a parkway and that commercial vehicles would be excluded ex­ cept along those segments of the Drive which are under the juris­ diction of the District of Columbia. It is for this reason that the Department of Highways has studies underway for an intermediate loop to serve ail traffic.

Apparently the only locations where Fort Drive would be coincident with city streets are:

1. Nebraska Avenue, from Foxhall Road to 'Wisconsin Avenue, and,

2. Military Road from 27th Street to a point east of Georgia Avenue by way of Missouri Avenue.

Military Road from 13th Street to 27th Street is at the present time under contract for construction and work is progressing rapidly. The remainder of this section to a point east of Georgia Avenue and also that section of Nebraska Avenue from Foxhall Road to Wisconsin Avenue are not included in any current District of Columbia Works <* ‘ Program. a diligent search has been made and nothing can be found in the record to indicate that the National Capital Park Service and the District have come to an agreement as to the division of responsibility in the construction of Fort Drive. However, it is our impression that the staff of the National Capital Park Service consider that the construction of Fort Drive is primarily a responsibility of the National Capital Park Service. Recently, at the. regular monthly staff meet­ ing of the National Capital Park Service and the Office of Planning, Design and Engineering, of the Department of Highways, a representative of the staff of the National Capi­ tal Park Service stated informally that the construction of Fort Drive is to be carried out in its entirety by the National Capital Park Service with the exception of the two segments discussed above.

With kindest personal regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

President, Board of Commissioners, D.C.

JNR/lynn Appendix CCC

John F. Kennedy Letter to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House on the Transportation Needs of the Washington Area, May 27, 1963, which endorses Fort Drive. Kennedy, John F. Piblic Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President, January 1 to November 22, 1963. Washington, DC.: The Government Printing Office, 1964, 428-31. [207] May 27 Public Papers of the Presidents

The Library contains historical material do­ plan will place the administration of the nated by him, and other related historical Franklin D. Roosevelt Library fully on a material. common footing with the administration At the present time responsibility for the of these three other Presidential libraries. Library is divided as follows: I am persuaded that the present division (1) The Secretary of the Interior is re­ of responsibility between the Secretary of the sponsible for the care, maintenance, and pro­ Interior and the Administrator of General tection of the buildings and grounds of the Services is not conducive to the most efficient Library and for the collection of fees for the administration of the Franklin D. Roosevelt privilege of visiting and viewing the exhibit Library. Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1963 rooms or museum portion of the Library, ex­ will apply to this library the preferable pat­ clusive, however, of the function of fixing tern of organization existing with respect the amounts of fees charged. to other Presidential libraries. (2) Responsibility for the contents and After investigation I have found and here­ professional services of the Library, and all by declare that each reorganization included other responsibility for the Library except in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1963 is as indicated above, are vested in the Admin­ necessary to accomplish one or more of the istrator of General Services. purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the When the. transfer of functions with re­ Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended. spect to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library The taking effect of reorganizations in­ from the Secretary of the Interior to the cluded in the reorganization plan will pro­ Administrator of General Services, as pro­ vide improved organizational arrangements vided for in the reorganization plan trans­ with respect to the administration of the mitted herewith, becomes effective, the Ad­ Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. While such ministrator will have complete responsibility arrangements will further the convenient for the library, including its buildings, and efficient carrying out of the purposes of grounds, contents, and services. the Library, it is impracticable to specify or Three other Presidential libraries are now itemize at this time the reductions of expend­ entirely under the jurisdiction of the Admin­ itures which it is probable will be brought istrator of General Services (in pursuance about by such taking effect. of section 507(g) of the Federal Property I recommend that the Congress allow the and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as reorganization plan to become effective. amended): the Harry S. Truman Library John F. Kennedy at Independence, Missouri, the Herbert note: Reorganization Plan 1 of 1963 is published Hoover Library at West Branch, Iowa, and in the Federal Register (28 F.R. 7659) and in tide the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library at Abi­ 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1963 Supp.). lene, Kansas. The taking effect of the pro­ It became effective on July 27, 1963. visions of the accompanying reorganization

208 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on the Transportation Needs of the Washington Area. May 2.7, 1963

Dear Mr.------: uous study for seven years. In July 1959 a The transportation needs of the National four-year survey concluded that the needs of Capital region have now been under contin­ the Capital required the development of a 428 John F. Kennedy, 1963 May 27 [208]

rapid transit system, in addition to an ex­ States, for the welfare of the District of panded highway network. -Hearings on that Columbia, for the orderly growth and de­ . proposal in the Congress indicated virtually velopment of the National Capital region, unanimous agreement with that conclusion. and for the preservation of the beauty and In response to a proposal by President Eisen­ dignity of the Nation’s Capital.” Nor can hower, the Congress enacted the National it be doubted that improved transportation j Capital Transportation Act of 1960, which must include a major rapid transit system. ! directed the drawing of plans for such a The alternatives would be steadily worsen­ : system, and created the National Capital ing congestion with all that congestion means Transportation Agency to perform the task. in losses of time and money, or an enlarged : On November 1,1962, in compliance with highway and freeway program entailing ' the i960 Act, the Agency submitted to me additional expense, major disruption of per­ its report for transmittal to the Congress. sons and businesses, and substantial impair­ That report recommends a ten-year Transit ment of the appearance and attractiveness of Development Program, which would pro­ the city. vide for the National Capital region an ex­ Good urban transportation can shape as tensive rail rapid transit, commuter rail and well as serve urban growth. The Year 2000 express bus system. High-speed and high- Plan, proposed in 1961 by the National Cap­ capacity trains would connect the Capital ital Planning Commission and the National . and Union Station by subway with the major Capital Regional Planning Council, outlines Federal and commercial employment centers the development of a series of corridors of

in downtown Washington, and radial routes relatively high-density population radiating REPRODUCED would run in several directions into the more from the central city as the most promising densely populated sections of the District and method of guiding the economic growth of the suburbs. A commuter rail route would the National ■ Capital area. The Plan as­

utilize existing rail facilities into the Dis­ sumes that rapid transit will be decisive in AT

trict, and express bus service would be de­ the development of these radial corridors. I THE

veloped on several freeways and express have recently requested all departments and NATIONAL parkways. ' agencies of the Federal Government to sup- The Agency’s proposed Transit Develop­ port this Plan. Prompt approval by the Con­

ment Program is, in my judgment, both gress of the Transit Development Program ARCHIVES sound and necessary. I am transmitting to will encourage efforts already under way by the Congress today the Agency’s report local governments in the region to relate “Recommendations for Transportation in their physical growth forecasts and economic the National Capital Region” and its “Sum­ development plans to this corridor concept. mary Report on the Transit Development The Agency estimates that it will cost $793 Program.” I am also transmitting a bill million to construct the proposed system which would authorize the Agency to pro­ over a ten-year period. While any estimate ceed with the construction of the system in is subject to modification upon the comple­ accordance with the Transit Development tion of more detailed engineering, the Program. I hope that this proposed legisla­ Agency’s figures provide a reasonable basis tion will receive both prompt and favorable for authorization of the program. Congressional action. In accordance with the directives given it There is no questioning the fact that, as in the i960 Act, the Agency has provided so stated in the National Capital Transporta­ far as possible for payment of system costs tion Act of i960, an improved transportation by users, with the remaining costs to be system for the region “is essential for the distributed among the Federal and local continued and effective performance of the governments of the region. The bulk of the functions of the Government of the United capital costs, which would be ultimately

23-711—64- -31 429 [208] May 27 Public Papers of the. Presidents

payable from system revenues, would be fi­ of the 1960 Act is not, of course, solely a nanced by borrowing from the capital mar­ matter of rapid transit. Rapid transit must ket. The remainder of those costs would be related to, and coordinated with, the be financed by Federal and local grants in movement of people and goods by freeways the same proportion as that proposed in the and parkways, roads and streets. I am national mass transportation program which keenly aware that there is no single touch­ I have recommended. The Agency has con­ stone that will resolve the relative roles of cluded that necessary borrowing can be re­ highways and rapid transit facilities in pro­ paid from fare box revenues within 36 years. viding for total regional transportation needs, Even under adverse circumstances, it seems and that wide differences of opinion exist as reasonable to conclude that the borrowing to the proper course to follow on specific could be repaid within a period of 50 years. highways and bridges in the National Cap­ Under the Agency’s proposed financial ital region. plan, grants would be used to begin con­ I am convinced that, before all of these struction of the system and there would be problems can be resolved, there is need for no recourse to borrowing until 1966. Ac­ a careful re-examination of the highway pro­ cordingly, Congress can and should au­ gram of the District of Columbia in the light

archives thorize the projected rapid transit system of the Transit Development Program, and

and appropriate funds for the start of its con­ the social, economic and esthetic impact of struction without deciding at this time upon highways of the Nation’s Capital. I am

national the nature of the organization, whether it be requesting the Board of Commissioners of

a regional compact agency, a Federal agency the District of Columbia to undertake this the

at or a corporation which -would ultimately re-examination in cooperation with appro­

have responsibility for financing the system priate Federal agencies. Such re-examina­ and providing for its operation. The i960. tion will, of course, be closely related to the Act stated an intent to promote the solution needs and desires of the surrounding juris­ of regional problems through regional com­

reproduced dictions. Meanwhile, work can go forward pacts, and gave the consent of Congress to on the very large portions of the highway negotiations among the District of Columbia network that are not in controversy. and the States of Maryland and Virginia for In my message to the Congress on the Dis­ a compact creating a regional transportation trict of Columbia budget I stated that I was agency. A suitable regional compact agency withholding from the 1964 fiscal year budget with adequate financing power is the most certain highway projects which were in con­ logical organizational framework for this troversy, and that following the review of regional program, and I am hopeful that the the National Capital Transportation compact negotiations which are now in Agency’s report I would transmit appropri­ progress will reach a successful conclusion. ate budget amendments. Decisions can be Meanwhile, the National Capital Trans­ made at this time to proceed with two of portation Agency should be provided with these projects, the proposed East Leg of the initial appropriations to begin immediately Inner Loop and the Fort Drive Parkway. on the Transit Development Program. In No budget amendments are necessary, since the event a satisfactory regional compact these projects can be funded within the total has not been negotiated and approved by the funds already requested in the 1964 budget Congress at the time that market borrowing for the District of Columbia Department of is required, the Agency’s proposal for the Highways. I have directed the Commis­ establishment of a Federal corporation would sioners to advise the Congress promptly as be appropriate. to the details. Decisions on the appropriate The improved transportation system for highway facility for the North Leg of the In­ the National Capital region which is the goal ner Loop, particularly whether it should be .430 John F. Kennedy, 1963 May 28 [209] built to Interstate standards, should await come to answer that question. The Transit the outcome of the re-examination which I Development Program of the National Cap­ have outlined above. Since the construction ital Transportation Agency presents a care­ of the Three Sisters Bridge as an Interstate fully conceived and attractive plan. It has facility appears to depend upon the decisions commended itself to me, and I hope it will which must be made with respect to the commend itself to the Congress. North Leg, its construction should likewise Sincerely, be deferred until all the alternatives have John F. Kennedy been fully re-examined. For similar reasons, note: This is the text of identical letters addressed no further commitments at this time should to the Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, President of be made with respect to the Potomac River the Senate, and to the Honorable John W. McCor­ Freeway. mack, Speaker of the House of Representatives. In the last analysis, an intelligent decision The National Capital Transportation Agency's report “Recommendations for Transportation in the on any portion of the transportation prob­ National Capital Region: Finance and Organiza­ lems of the National Capital region should tion" is dated November 1962 (Government Print­ be made on the basis of a plan which en­ ing Office, 92 pp.); its "Summary Report on the compasses both mass transit and highways. Transit Development Program" is dated May 1963 One portion of that plan—a modern, high­ (Government Printing Office, 42 pp.). For the President's memorandum to Federal de­ speed and high-quality rapid transit system— partments and agencies on the Year 2000 Plan for has been tentative. Other plans have re­ the National Capital Region, referred to in the fifth flected the lack of sure knowledge that such paragraph, see 1962 volume, this series, Item 525. a system would be built. The time has now

209 Remarks. Upon Signing the Outdoor Recreation Bill. May 28, 1963

I AM pleased to sign S. 20 into law today— door Recreation, to undertake the planning, an act which will promote the coordination research, and coordination tasks outlined by and development of effective outdoor recrea­ the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review tion programs. The prompt action of the Commission and the Congress. . Congress in enacting this legislation which Significant as this legislation is, it is pri­ the executive branch recommended is a marily an administrative tool permitting recognition by the Congress of the vital more effective and better coordinated pro­ need to protect and wisely administer this cedures for administering the Federal estate Nation’s great heritage of outdoor recrea­ and greater cooperation and assistance to the tion resources. States. In order to implement this planning The bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Re­ program and to provide the financial means sources Review Commission established by for preserving our recreation resource, I the Congress in 1958. has submitted a valu­ hope the Congress will also enact the “Land able report demonstrating in a most per­ and Water Conservation Fund” legislation suasive manner the need for an affirmative which we recommended and which is now program to insure the best possible use of pending in the Congress. Overwhelming those resources which will rapidly be swal­ evidence has been received of the interest lowed up for other uses unless adequately of the States in this legislation which would protected and utilized. This legislation will permit those who specifically benefit from enable the Department of the Interior, our outdoor resources to help acquire land through its newly formed Bureau of Out- and water areas needed for the generations

431 Appendix DDD

T.C. Jeffers, “A Brief Story of Some of the Civil War Forts and Their Relation to the Proposed Fort Drive and George Washington Memorial Parkway, November 8, 1935. Rock Creek Park Historical Files, “Fort Marcy.” 7.

A Brief Story of Some of the Civil War Forts ■ and Their Relation to the Proposed Fort Drive and George Washington Manorial Parkway by . T. C. Jeffers - Landscape Architect t

November 8, 1935. The Civil War Forts around Washington were built on hills and ridges

which commanded distant views. Due to their historic interest and ths

remarkable views obtained from them the National Capital Park and Planning

Commission embarked upon a policy of acquiring these forts and the sites of those already destroyed, as park areas. The Commission has also undertaken the task of linking these forts together by a parkway entirely encircling the City of Washington. In soma places this parkway will be in the nature of

a glorified street, in others more in the nature of a narrow park with road­ ways, walks and bridle paths connecting two larger perks at the old forts* The list of forts to be connected and so become part of the Fort Drive is as follows: Battery Kemble: (Acquired). Part of the old fortifications still exist and will be preserved, with the addition of picnic grounds - will be part of a larger park area.

Fort Reno: The original site of the fort is occupied by city water supply reservoirs. Additions have been acquired to make this a recreation park

This is the highest point in the District of Columbia. The Fort Drive will en­ circle the old fort site to take advantage of the fine view. Battery Torrill: This is in private ownership and the Fcrt Drive will pass by the foot, of the hill on which it is located. Fort DeRussy: This fort Is In an exceptionally good state of preserva­ tion, is located in Rook Creek Park, and will be accessible from the Fort Drive. Fort Stevens: Only a small portion of the ramparts are still existing which have now been acquired. The remaining portion will be restored. The

monument to President Lincoln which is located here will be repaired, and the

area transformed into a memorial park in honor of President Lincoln who was

here under fire of Confederate guns. The area will be fenced to preserve its quiet, memorial character.

Fort Slocum: A large area has been acquired here although only a part of the old fort is still discernable. This will be developed into a neigh- borhood park.

Fort Totten: This is one of the best preserved of the old forts and a large area has been acquired here. The Fort Drive will again encircle the Fort to give the motorist the remarkable view to the east and southeast. FortL incoln: The little that is left of this old fort is within the grounds of the National Training School for Boys. It will become part of the

Fort Drive system and commands a good view of the Brookland section of the city. Fort Mahan; Not a great deal of this old fort exists today but due to the commanding view across the Anacostia River a considerable area has been acquired. Picnicing and recreation will be developed here. ' Fort Chaplin: While some land has been acquired here the actual fort its has not yet been obtained. Will eventually be a neighborhood park with recreation on the lower ground at the base of the hill. Fort Dupont: Thia fort is in excellent condition and an area of 42.19

immediately surrounding has been owned for a long time. An additional area of 315 acres is in the course of being acquired which will make this, next to Rock Creek Park, the largest in the District of Columbia. Picnicing, roads. bridle paths, recreational areas and golf will ultimately be available here. Fort Davis: Thia fort has been in public ownership for some years.

An addition has recently been acquired. The development will be as a neigh- borhood park. — Fort Stanton: A portion of the old fort is still in existence. A considerable area has been acquired. Part of the area may be used for rec- reation and the remainder as a local park, preserving the good views of the city.

Battery Ricketts: Only a small part of the old battery remains* As this is near Fort Stanton and the Fort Drive passes between, this battery will bo desirable as a part of the park system* Fort Snyder: Little remains of this fort. It is within the St. Eliza­ beth Hospital Grounds and the Fort Drive will pass the site.

Fort Carroll: The small part of this fort still remaining has been acquired and will be a part of the larger Shepherd Parkway development. Fort Greble: The remains of this fort may still be seen on the ground.

While it is now in private ownership it will ultimately become part of the

Shepherd Parkway development. The following forte have been acquired but will not be a part of the Fort Drive due to their location: Fort Bayard: This will be a small neighborhood park. Fort Bunker Hill: This will also bo a neighborhood park .

Fort Foote: This fort is in good condition and will bo part of the

George Washington Memorial parkway. It will ultimately bo connected with the

Fort Drive and will be developed into picnicing, recreation, and camping areas. 2

Practically all of the other forte within the District of Columbia have disappeared or not enough of them remains to make their acquisition end development worth while. Whenever any part of the old fortifications remains at the areas in public ownership, these will be preserved and some few of them may be restored to their original condition. The policy as to this has not as yet been definitely decided. The Port Drive connecting these forts from its western terminus at the Potomac River and Nebraska Avenue to its eastern terminus at Blue Plains will be some twenty-three miles in length and at either end will connect with the

George Washington Memorial Parkway where one may continue westward to the

Great Falls of the Potomac or southward to Fort Foote and Fort Washington, which was designed by Pierre L’Enfant and built in colonial days. Appendix EEE

T.C. Jeffers, “THE FORT DRIVE, A Chronological History of the More Important Actions and Events Relating Thereto,” February 7, 1947. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2. National Capital Park and Planning Commission p/7C>

-J-I

A Chronological History of the Wore Important Actions and Events Relating Thereto T. C. Jeffers . Landscape Archite Feb. 7, 1947

1898 - A "Fort Drive" is indicated on the D.C. Highway Plan of that year,

1901 - Fort Drive recommended in McMillan Report of 1901 as something more than a Highway Plan street.

1923 - Dec. 17. Senate Bill S. 1340 introduced.

1924- Jan. 3. Report of Committee of 100 published recommending establishing a Fort Boulevard.

1924 - Jan. 3. House Bill H.R. 4490 introduced and sponsored by Asst. Secretary of War and District Commissioners to make survey and plan for Parkway connecting the Civil War Forts.

1924 - Feb. 15. D.C. Map of Fort Drive using Highway Plan streets.

1924 - May 20. S. 1340 reported favorably by Senate Committee on the D.C.

1924 - In Senate and House reports the Fort Drive was project No. 2 in importance.

192h - June 6. Act of Congress (43 Stat. 463) approved, creating National Capital Park Commission and providing for a comprehensive park development.

1924 - Dec. 30. S. 1340 passed the Senate.

1925 ~ March 3. First appropriation to KCPC for land acquisition approved.

1925 - March 18. NCPC formed a Planning Committee on which D.C.Commissioners were represented by Maj. R. A. Wheeler and Mr. Melvin C. Hazen, to review the 1901 Report on parks and bring it up to date in harmony with exist­ ing conditions.

1925 - July 31. Memo of J. G. Langdon, City Planner, indicates that the Fort Drive was one of the first projects studied by the Commission.

1925 Oct. 15. First land acquired for Ft. Stevens—first Fort to be acquired.

1926 - Apr. 30. Act of Congress approved creating the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

1926 - June 18-19 Commission meeting: Discussion of what Fort Drive was to be. Parkway, not city streets, was the decision.

1926 - June 18-19. Commission authorized Planning Committee to continue as the Coordinating Committee. .

1926 - Aug. 20. Coordinating Committee was requested by Commission to study- Fort Drive with "view to broadening the connecting drive." REPROOuCEO at ThE haTiQGA.. a<

/ / -2-

1926 - Oct. 15. Commission approved widening of Madison St. from 3rd to Concord Ave. to 120 ft., to be used as Fort Drive, but this not to be ' considered as precedent in planning other sections of Fort Drive.

1926 - Oct. 21. Letter from Commission of Fine Arts endorsing Fort Drive and stressing its importance to the National Capital.

1927 - Feb. 18. Comprehensive report on the Fort Drive by Charles W. Eliot 2d, presented to the Commission.

1927 - April 11. First property acquired for Fort Drive in Shepherd Parkway.

1927 - Nov. 18. Commission approved 5 Major Park Projects of which Ft. Drive was one.

1927 - Nov. 18, Col. Ladue, D.C. Commissioner, in agreement on entire Park Program including Fort Drive.

1928 - Mar. 10. House D.C. Committee hearing on Capper-Cramton Act. Statements by Messrs. Grant, Brown and Eliot.

1928 - Mar. 13 and 21. Senate D.C.Committee hearing on " " " " Messrs. Grant, Brown and Eliot. Capper-Cramton Act had the endorsement of the D.C.Commissioners and many others.

1928- Mar. 23. Fort Drive endorsed by Mr. Stephan T. Mather

1930 “ May 29. Capper-Cramton Act passed authorizing land purchase appropriations for Fort Drive, etc. (Public No. 28U)

1930 - July 7® Report of Coordinating Committee asS coordination of intersections of D. C. streets with Fort Drive.

1930 - July, to 1934 Fort Drive discussed many times by Commission and Coordinating Committee with no outstanding action, although no dissenting voice was raised.

1935 Beginning this fiscal year the Eureau of the Budget required a breakdown into projects of the Commission's request for land acquisition appropriations. Five Fort Drive items were included in the 1935 request.

1937 Sept. 30. Memo regarding Capt. Whitehurst's suggestion that around $225,000 should be made available annually for the Fort Drive.

1937 - Oct. 28-29. Capt. Whitehurst asked that estimates of cost for the construc­ tion of Fort Drive be prepared and offered to have them made by his office if detail plans were furnished him.

1937 - Nov. 19. Letter from Mr. Arno B. Cammerer to Mr. D. 7,. Bell, Director of the Budget, referring to item for Fort Drive construction submitted by D. C. Commissioners.

1938 ~ Mar. 7. Resolution of Manor Park Citizens' Assoc'n urging construction of Fort Drive. 1 •i-3'

1938 - Aug 10. Mr. Delano's letter regarding Col. Sultan's support of Fort Drive.

1938 - August. D. C. Commissioners requested $400,000 from PWA for Fort Drive ' construction. This request was finally refused by Mr. Ickes in favor of the Rock Creek pollution abatement.

1938 - Sept. 29-30. Complete set of 100 scale development plans submitted to Commission, and approved.

1939 - Mar. 17. Mr. Nichols submitted comprehensive statement on Fort Drive to Commission.

1939 - Mar. 27 - Maj. Atkins' letter of approval of Fort Drive for Chief of Engineers---- Gen. Schley.

1940 - Feb.14 - Letter from Mr. Jay Downer in re Fort Drive.

1940 - Apr. 3. Mr. Jay Downer employed by Commission as Consultant to make a study of Fort Drive. :

1940 - Aug.1-2. Mr. Downer made verbal report on standards, etc. for Fort Drive. . Capt. Whitehurst endorsed' in principle Mr. Downer's report. Commission approved the general objectives as outlined by Mr. Downer.

1940 - Sept. 19-20. Mr. Downer made second verbal report on progress of restudy and recommending additional land acquisition to achieve desirable standards. Mr. Downer gave probable cost as between 12 and 15 million dollars as standards he recommended with grade separations. Commission approved additional land acquisitions recommended.

1940 - Oct'. 17-18. Detail plans showing revisions by Mr. Downer approved by Commission.

1940 - Nov 14-15. Mr. Downer made final report on Fort Drive to joint meeting of Commission and D. Ci Commissioners. Motion unanimously-carried (as amended by Col. McCoach) recommending Fort Drive development be set up as 10-year project, as per plans as revised and . recommended by Mr. Downer. Report as to legal status submitted by Mr. Settle. Commission approved draft of bill to increase gas tax from 2$ to 3^ on assurance of Col. McCoach that some of the tax money collected would be available for construction of Fort Drive and other park roads.

1940 -Dec. 19-20.: Mr. Downer submitted revised plans, 5th and Concord, N.W. to Eastern Ave. and Bunker Hill Road N.E. . Public Roads Administration recommended that grade separations be included at this time.

1941 - Jan. 14. Letter to Col. McCoach submitting plans and requesting estimates, 5th & Concord to Eastern and Bunker Hill Road. ,

1941 - Feb. 27. Estimates from Public Roads Administration of cost of 9 grade separation structures on above section—$973,500. 1941 - Nov. 15. Letter to Hon. Harold H. Burton supporting H.R. 5558 to increase gas tax 2c with express stipulation that part of tax returns be used for Fort Drive and other park road construction.

1941 - Dec. 3. Letter from Senator Burton endorsing the Fort Drive and Com­ mission's program.

1943 ~ Mar. 18-19. Chairman Clarke of Fine Arts Commission recommended two 3-lane roads instead of two 2-lane roads as planned for Fort Drive.

1943 - Oct. 21 -.Joint meeting with D. C. Commissioners. Col. Arthur suggested decision be made whether Fort Drive shall be a part of D. C. Highway­ System or Park and Parkway System. Commission ordered that all interested agencies join in such study.

1944 Mar. 27. Letter to D. C. Commissioners requesting inclusion of sections of Fort Drive in Post-War Program.

1944 - Apr. 5. Letter to Capt. Whitehurst thanking him for estimates of cost he had prepared (estimates not in file).

1944 - July 29. Letter from Commissioner John Russell Young that Commissioners will sponsor request for funds to prepare construction plans for two sections of Fort Drive— 1. MacArthur Boulevard to Loughboro Road, and 2. Across Rock Creek Park—llith St. to 27th Street.

1944 - Oct. 24. Agreement between D. C. and Park Service on Fort Drive across Rock Creek Park.

1945 - Aug. 8. Commission approved Plan No. 10.8-12 for Fort Drive across Rock Creek Park.

1946 - Nov. 18. At joint meeting with D. C. Commissioners, General Grant stressed importance of Fort Drive-for traffic purposes. General Young suggested an estimate of cost be made as he had heard estimates discussed as high as 30 million dollars, which spread over 10 years would require most of D. C. appropriations for such work. Mr.' Nichols recommended that the expensive grade separation structures be deferred.

1947 - Jan. 23. Commission approved plans for bridges across Rock Creek and at loth Street.

1947 - Commission was informed by newsmen of Messrs. Fowler and Dent's recommenda­ tion that Fort Drive be abandoned and land sold, which report was released to the press by Commissioner John Russell Young.

1947 - Jan. 24. Commission's action regarding Fowler-Dent proposal. Appendix FFF

T.C. Jeffers, “A Brief History of THE FORT DRIVE -- Evolution of its Concept and Function,” March 17, 1947. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2. » •- J REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES ».

APPENDIX March 20-21, 1947 Meeting

NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

T. C. Jeffers Landscape Architect March 17, 1947

A Brief History of THE FORT DRIVE - Evolution of its Concept and Function

The first notice of the Fort Drive, in the official records of the Commission, is on- the 1398 District of Columbia Highway Map.

The Fort Drive had its earliest inception as something other than a Highway Plan street in the 1901 Report of the Park Commission of the District of Columbia where it is recommended that the street laid out on the highway plans bc used, "but it should bc increased to a. more- liberal width than now provided, which is only 90 feet between houses," etc. On the east side -of the Anacostia River, at what is now known as the Shepherd Parkway, a vd.de parkway including the whole' slope was re­ commended, to control the outlook across the river.

After the 1901 report there is no indication in the Commission’s records of any action until COLONEL WILLIAM M. HART’S letter of June 12, 1917 to BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM M BLACK, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Amy, in which he outlines the situation as to the recommendations in the 1901 report and recommends that street and topographical conditions bc sur­ veyed and that an expert bc consulted to bring the plans up to date.

The next important activity is the letter of the Assistant Secretary the War, BENEDICT CROWELL, to Commissioner LOUIS BROWNLOW, dated October 20, 1919, sending a report of the Officer in Charge of Public Buildings and Grounds on the Fort Drive and a copy of a bill sotting up a Commission to plan such parkway.

December 17, 1923 - Senate Bill S. 1340 - introduced in Senate, and January 3, 1924 - House Bill H. R. 4490 - introduced in House, authorizing survey and study for establishment of the Fort Drive. On the same day, January 3, 1924, the report of the Committee of 100 on the National Capital was published recommending establishment of a Fort Boulevard.

The above legislation was reported favorably by the Senate District Committee on May 20, 1924 after receiving a favorable report from the District Commissioners dated December 14, 1923, and on December 30, 1924, this bill was approved by the Senate. t On March 10, 1924, CAPTAIN J. E. WOOD, Assistant Engineer Commissioner, sent to COLONEL SHERRILL a map of the District of Columbia on which was indicated a Fort Drive completely encircling the District. MMta o o

- 2 -

On June 6, 1924, Act of Congress (43 Stat. 463) passed creating the National Capital Park Commission and providing for a comprehensive park development for the District.

On March 3, 1925, the first appropriation to the National Capital Park Commission far land acquisition was passed.

The National Capital Park Commission on March 18, 1925 formed a Planning Committee to review the 1901 report on parks and bring it up to date in harmony with existing conditions. The District Commissioners were represented on this Committee by MAJOR R. A. WHEELER, Assistant Engineer Commissioner and MR. MELVIN C. HAYEN, Surveyor.

. The memorandum of MR. J. G. LANGDON, City Planner, dated July 31, 1925, indicates that the Fort Drive was one of the first projects studied by this Committee and the Commission. The first land was acquired October 15, 1925, at Fort Stevens.

On April 30, 1926 the Act of Congress was approved creating the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

There had already been considerable discussion as to just what the Fort Drive was to bc but at the meeting of the Commission on June 18-19, 1926, it was finally decided that the Fort Drive was to be designed as a parkway and not just widened city streets. (The first report of the Westchester County, Nev; York Park Commission was published in 1923 and by 1926 their work was becoming known.) 1 The Commission at their meeting on June 18-19, 1926 had authorized the Planning Committee to continue as the Coordinating Committee and on August 20, 1926, this Committee was requested to study the Fort Drive with "view to broadening the connecting drive". On October 15, 1926, the Com­ mission approved the widening of Madison Street from 3rd Street to Concord Avenue to 120 feet to bc used as/part of Fort Drive but this was net to bc considered as a precedent (the use of streets) in planning the other sections of the Fort Drive.

The Commission of Fine Arts, by letter of October 21, 1926, indorsed the Fort Drive and stressed its importance to the. National Capital.

At the Commission's meeting on February 2, 1927, CHARLES ELIOT 2nd, City Planner, presented his parkway report on the Fort Drive. '

On April 11, 1927, title was recorded on the first property acquired for the Fort Drive which was in the Shepherd Parkway section. ,

The Commission, on November 18, 1927, approved five Major Park Projects of which Fort Drive was one. COLONEL IADUE, D. C. Commissioner at that time, expressed, himself as being in agreement on entire park programs, which included the Fort Drive. . - 3 -

The House D. C. Committee hold hearings on the Capper-Cramton Bill on March 10, 1928, and the Senate District Committee hearings wore held on March 13,and 21. Those committees were intensely interested in the Fort Drive. This legislation had the endorsement of the District Commissioners at that time. ,

The Capper-Cramton Act (Public No. 264) was enacted into Law on May 29, 1930. ' ‘

At the meeting of the Commission in May 1930, COLODEL LADUE raised the question of coordination of grades nt intersecting streets. A sub­ committee of the Coordinating Committee was formed which went into this question in great detail. At the September 1930 meeting, the Director of Planning reported that the District Highway and Sewer Departments and the Planning Staff were in agreement on nil highway crossings of the Fort Drive.

Between September 1930 and August 1933, the Fort Drive, was discussed many times, both in the Coordinating Committee and the Commission meetings. No dissenting voice was raised, although many plans were approved during this time and a great deal of land was acquired.

In August 1933, four sections of the Fort Drive were submitted to ths office of National Capital Parks for inclusion in their list of Public Works Projects.

Some grading was done on several sections as a Civil Works Pro­ ject.

At the March 1934 meeting, the Commission approved submitting the general plan of the Fort Drive to the D. C. Commissioners as a project and detailed plans of the section from Sth Str .'.-t to Kansas Avenue, as a specific project with request for funds for construction.

On August 26, 1935, five Fort Drive projects were submitted to the Park Office for inclusion in the W.P.A. program.

At the May 1937 meeting of the Commission, the Director of Plan­ ning reported that the District Commissioners had submitted a request to the Bureau of the Budget for $200,000 to begin work on the Fort Drive. This was disapproved by the Bureau of the Budget because of the great need for extension of streets at that time.

Following the- discussion at the July, 1938 Commission Meeting a committee, consisting of CAPTAIN WHITTENHURST, MESSRS. DEUT, CARTSIDE RIDER and NOIEN, met on August 3 and decided to submit a Fort Drive project extending from Conduit Road, to Fort Totten and. request approx­ imately >1,000,000 for construction. . - 4 -

Commissioners finally submitted, a request to the P. A. for $400,000 in August 1938.- -Shis request was finally refused by letter of June.15, 1939 in favor of abatement of pollution in Rock Creek,

At the meeting of the Commission in March 1939, MR. NICHOLS presented his comprehensive statement -on the Fort Drive.

On April 3, 1940, MR. JAY DOWNER, farmer Engineer of the Westchester County, New York Park Commission, was employed as a consultant to review the Fort. Drive Plans . MR. DOWER, on August 1, 1940, made a verbal report on standards for the Fort Drive which CAPTAIN WHITENHURST endorsed in principle and the Commission approved. At the September 1940 meeting, MR. DOWNER recommended additional Land acquisition to achieve the desirable standards previously approved. These were approved by the Commission. MR. DOWNER gave probable cost of FORT DRIVE as between 12 and 15 million dollars including grade separations and improved standards.

In October 1940, thG Commission approved revised, detail plans as recommended by MR. DOYNER. .

On November 14, 1940, MR. DOWNER made his final report to a joint meeting of the Commission and the D. C. Commissioners. MOTION unanimously carried, as amended by COLONEL McCOACH, recommending the Fort Drive Development be set up as a 10-year project as per revised plans recommended by MR. DOWNER. Report as to legal status submitted, by the Commission Secretary.

It was at this meeting that the Commission approved, the draft of a bill to increase the gas tax from 2c to 3c on the assurance of COLONEL . »l McCOATH that some of the tax money from this gas tax would be available for construction of the Fort Drive and other park roads. . 3:

At the December 1940 meeting, the Public Roads Administration recommended that the grade separations be included in the first construction. i;ii i: Plans of the section of Fort Drive from 5th and Concord to Eastern £ Avenue and Bunker Hill Road were submitted to COLONEL McCOACH on January r 14, 1941 requesting that estimates be prepared. I: 3 Estimates of the 9 grade separation structures in this section, 4; amounting to 973,500, were received from the Public Roads Administration r on February 27, 1941. {•’

I* The Commission’s letter of November 15, 1941, to HONORABLE HAROLD H. !(. BURTON indicated its support of H. R. 5558 increasing the gas tax 2c with the express stipulation that part of the tax returns be used for the j’i Fort Drive and other park road construction. r.i - 5 -

A letter was received from Senator Burton, dated December 3, 1941, endorsing the Fort Drive and the Commission’s program. CHAIRMAN GILMORE D. CLARKE of the Commission of Fine Arts, at the meeting of March 1943, recommended. that, in view of their experience with parkways in the New York area, the Fort Drive be increased from 2 2-lnnc rone’s to 2 3-lane roads as he felt sure the additional width would be needed.

At the joint meeting of the Commission and the D. C. Commissioners on October 21, 1943, COLONEL ARTHUR suggested that a decision bo made as to whether the Fort Drive shall be a part of the D. C. Highway System or the Park and Parkway System. The Commission ordered that all interest­ ed agencies join in such a study. On March 27, 1944, the Commission requested the District Commissioners to include sections of the Fort Drive in their Post War Program.

On April 5, 1944, a letter was addressed to CAPTAIN WHITENHURST thanking him for the estimates of cost he had prepared. (These estimates are not in the file). A letter was received from commissioner JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG dated July 29, 1944, stating that the Commissioners will sponsor a request for funds- to prepare construction plans for two sections of the Fort Drive - 1. MacArthur Boulevard to Loughboro Rond and 2. Across Rock Creek Park, 14th Street to 27th Street. An agreement was reached on October 24, 1944 between the District and the Park Office on construction of the section between 14th and 27th. Streets. On August 8, 1945, the Commission approved the plan No. 108-12 for this section across Rock Creek Park.

At a’ joint meeting with the D. C. Commissioners on November 18, 1946, GENERAL GRANT stressed the traffic importance of the Fort Drive. GENERAL YOUNG requested that an estimate of cost be prepared as he had heard figures discussed running as high as 30 million dollars which, if spread, over a 10-year period, would take most of the D. C. funds available for new construction.

MR. NICHOLS recommended that most of the expensive grade separation structures be omitted from the initial program. The Commission, at their meeting on January 3, 1947, approved plans for the bridges across Rock Creek and at 16th Street. •

At this meeting, the Commission was informed by a newsman of the FOWLER-DENT recommendation that the Fort Drive be abandoned and the land - 6 - sold for private development, which report was released by COMMISSIONER JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG

The Commission’s action regarding this proposal is a matter of record. Appendix GGG

“The Story of the Fort Memorial Freeway 1894 - 1953,” Civil War Round Table of the District of Columbia,“Washington Needs The Fort Memorial Freeway,’’Pamphlet, (1953?). THE STORY OF THE FORT MEMORIAL FREEWAY 1894 -1953

1891-11198—A map of the District of Columbia high­ District Committees for its plans, including the Fort support a two-cent increase in the gasoline tax, a part of way system included for the first time a road making drive on which hearings were held that year and which the new revenue to be applied to construct the drive. accessible to visitors the chain of supporting forts and had the approval of the District Commissioners. The Gov­ The Public Roads Administration recommended that batteries built around the Union capital during the Civil ernors of Virginia and Maryland, called to a mass meet­ grade separations be included in the first construction. War as a protection against raids and possible attacks. ing at Constitution Hall, promised their cooperation. 1911—The President of the Board of Commissioners 1901 —The McMillan Commission recommended acqui­ 1930 — Based on these plans, the Capper-Cramlon Act wrote that funds for construction of two sections of the sition of the forts for local parks and joining them with was introduced and approved. drive would be requested. a driveway wider than the 90-foot road shown on the highway map. (Sen. Rep. 166, 57th Cong., pp. 111-112) I93i-I93(>—Plans for the drive were perfected and 1917 - Des igns for construction of the first two sections, much of the right of way was acquired. prepared by the Highway Department in consultation with 1919— The Officer in Charge of Public Buildings and the National Park Service, were approved by the Planning Grounds submitted a report calling for a Fort drive and Commission. 1937-1939—Efforts to secure funds to start work on the Assistant Secretary of War proposed legislation to the drive were hampered by the depression. set up a commission to plan it. 19-18 —Mr. Jesse C. Nichols, developer of the world- famous Country Club district of Kansas City, past Presi­ 19 10 -A revised study by Jay Downer, nationally- 192 1 —Senate and House bills (S. 1340 and H. R. 4490) dent of the National Association of Real Estate Boards recognized engineer, sets the drive up as a freeway rather authorized a survey and study to establish the need for and director of the Urban Land Institute, assured the than a parkway to take care of traffic needs. The District a Fort drive. Later, on January 3, 1924, the Committee Washington Board of Trade that the Fort Drive would Commissioners formally approved setting up the project of 100 recommended a “Fort Boulevard following the have a greater beneficial effect on traffic conditions thun on a l()-year basis. The Planning Commission agreed to hills encircling the city and connecting the Civil War any other solution that could be found. . forts.” 1953 —911.9'/ of the right of way is in public ownership 1925- The National Capital Park Commission estab­ waiting for construction of the Freeway. Except for Fort lished a Planning Committee to review the 1901 McMillan Stevens, beautifully restored by the National Park Service, Commission report. the remains of the old forts are crumbling.

Now is the time to secure the needed action by 1920— The Park and Planning Commission decided the proper authorities. Now is the time for the that the Fort drive should be a broad parkway and District Commissioners to redeem the many prom­ should be given first consideration. The National Com­ ises made in the past by including the Fort Memo­ mission of Fine Arts gave its support to the plan and rial Freeway in their proposed highway program, stressed its importance. and we further urge the Congress to make the necessary appropriations now. If this is done, the 1927-1928—The Engineer Commissioner expressed Freeway may be completed in time to take its place his approval of the Fort drive. Later, the Planning Com­ Old Ft. Totten as a monument to the centennial of the Civil War mission received the support of the Senate and House 3rd Muss. Heavy Artillery with Parrott Rifle to be celebrated in 1961. Appendix HHH

“History of Fort Drive,” In National Capital Planning Commission, Fort Park System: A Re­ evaluation Study of Fort Drive. Washington. D.C. April 1965 By Fred W. Tuemmler and Associates, College Park, Maryland. Washington, DC: National Capital Planning Commission, 1965, 2-9. attainment of harmonious relationships with other facets in the City-scape so as to achieve the highest level of unity, making it an inspiring and visually satisfying element in the overall design of the National Capital.

II HISTORY OF FORT DRIVE

Genesis of the Fort Parks At the beginning of the Civil War the city of Washington, which stood at the very edge of the cleavage line between the opposing forces of North and South, had for its defense only one fort—Fort Washington, 11 miles to the south on the Maryland side of the Potomac River.

Aware of the Capital's precarious situation and recognizing the need to provide adequate defenses so that the symbol of Union preservation would not be overrun by hostile forces, the fortification of nearby hills was begun. The defeat of Union forces at Bull Run in the first summer of the nation's internal struggle intensified the defensive effort, and the system of fortifications was extended on the strategic heights encircling the city.

Initially consisting of hastily-built earthworks, the defense system was strengthened and improved so that when the war ended in 1865 there were 68 enclosed forts and batteries with emplacements for 1,120 guns, 905 of which (including 98 mortars) were actually mounted. There were also 93 unarmed batteries to accommodate field guns, three blockhouses and 20 miles of trenches connecting the main defense works, providing in all perhaps the strongest system of protection existing at the time for any city in the world.

The need for this elaborate system of defense terminated with the end of the war. The forts fell into disuse, were abandoned and the land returned to the previous owners. Because of their historic interest, most were preserved for a number of years, but some were destroyed as the city's development moved outward and fort sites and earthworks gave way to building development. (1)

The Fort Drive Concept - The Commission on Improvement of the Park System Evolution and Changes (McMillan Commission) in 1901 advanced the idea of memorializing the old forts and proposed that parks be established at these sites, ranging in size from small neighborhood facilities to several of substantial dimension and that a system of linkage be established forming a continuous parkway route along the crest of hills encircling the inner city. (2)

(1) The Defenses of Washington, 1860-1865, by Stanley W. McClure, Assistant Chief, National Memorials and Historic Sites Section, U.S. Dept, of the Interior, NPS Reprint 1961. See Appendix for Salient Facts Relating to Forts. (2) Map of the District of Columbia showing public reservations and possessions and areas recommended to be taken as necessary for new parks and park connections —Commission on the Improvement of the Park System November 1901. 2 When the National Capital Park and Planning Commission was created in 1926 it took up the burden of its predecessor Park Commission which had been charged by Congress in 1924 with the task of establishing "a Fort Boulevard following the hills and encircling the city and connecting the Civil War forts." (3)

The Commission,in its first report (4), conceived of the Fort Drive as a "continuous, unbroken, easily followed, wooded road making ... a picturesque circuit of the Capital" and constituting "the most striking feature of (the) park system."

In an appearance before a Congressional Committee in 1928 Charles W. Eliot II, the Commission’s first director, emphasized that the 23-mile parkway should "... give the effect of a green strip all the way", that Fort Drive should be used not "merely as a street" but that it should be "a distinctive feature of the park system of the Capital." (5)

Ten years later, at a meeting July 28-30, 1938, John Nolen, Jr., the Commission's second director, presented a syllabus on Fort Drive, describing it as “an historic and scenic parkway and boulevard ..." the plans for which "sought to follow modem standards of city parkway design" with a "minimum roadway width of 40 feet . . . throughout." (6)

About two years later (April 3, 1940), the Commission engaged Jay Downer, former Chief Engineer for Westchester County, New York, and consultant to the Long Island State Park Commission, as a consultant to review the Fort Drive plans. (7) Under his direction detailed plans were prepared for a four-lane divided parkway road with grade-separated intersections providing for limited access characteristics for much of its length. The facility was to be limited to passenger vehicles and grades up to eight per cent were permitted. The Downer plan was approved by the Commission in November 1940.

The Commission recommended that Fort Drive be set up as a ten-year project and in furtherance of its construction supported legislation proposing an increase in the tax on gasoline with the proviso that part of the money thus derived be used for the Fort Drive and other park road construction. (8)

(3) 1927 Annual Report (page 11), National Capital Park and Planning Commission. (4) ibid, page 12 (5) Statements of Lieut.Col. U.S. Grant III, Major Carey H. Brown and Charles W. Eliot || before the Committee of the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, March 10, 1928. (6) The Fort Drive, Washington, D. C., by John Nolen, Jr., Director of Planning. (7) A Brief History of the Fort Drive—Evolution of its Concept and Function—T.C. Jeffers, Landscape Architect, March 17, 1947. Presented at the March 20-21, 1947 meeting of the Commission. (8) ibid 3 When, in 1950, the Commission presented its comprehensive plan, its supporting monographs included one on thoroughfares (9) and another relating to open spaces (10), and in both of these, as well as the summary report (11), the Fort Drive was featured.

The Thoroughfare Plan identified portions of the Fort Drive as express highways and others as express parkways, defining each type of facility as a freeway with controlled access and grade separations but with the lattens use confined to passenger traffic. Referring to the Fort Drive as an ’’intermediate ring", the report said: "... This route would be developed as a freeway or express parkway . . ." and "it would follow the right-of-way proposed for Fort Drive."

The open space report, referring to parkways, defined these as "limited access highways restricted to passenger-carrying vehicles . . . (of) . . . two classes, (1) Express parkways which provide pleasant routes of travel for persons pursuing their daily activities . . . (and) ... (2) Pleasure parkways which ore important connecting links in the park system ..." and recommended a right of way "vary­ ing from 200 to 500 feet" and in appropriate cases the inclusion “at intervals, (of) areas sufficiently large to provide for park or recreation needs of adjacent neigh­ borhoods."

In describing the "existing" park system, the open space report stated that "express parkways are becoming increasingly important and will serve as essential links in the major thoroughfare plan for the District." Fort Drive was indicated as among the "more important" . . . serving as "a circumferential traffic distributor."

The summary report also emphasized the dual concept of express highway and express parkway by showing the Nebraska Avenue and Military Road sections ^through Rock Creek Park) and the section between Bladensburg Road and Benning Road and below South Capitol Street in the express highway category with the remainder classified as express parkway.

It appears from the foregoing that although the Commission was holding desperately to the idea of a “pleasure parkway", at the same time it was in the anomalous situation of encouraging a change, in part, to an express facility that was destined, in time, to sound the death knell of the parkway concept. Succeeding s* >dies relating to the Fort Drive strengthened this duality of purpose.

In 1959, under the joint sponsorship of the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council, there was completed for the National Capital Region a Transportation Plan which called for a "balanced" system,

(9) Moving People and Goods, Monograph ^5, June 1950, N.C.P. & P. C. (10) Open Spaces and Community Services, Monograph 4, June 1950, N.C.P.& P.C. (11) Washington, Present and Future, A General Summary of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital and its Environs, June 1950, N.C.P. & P.C.

4 including a network of freeways and parkways, express bus service, rail transit service, local transit and improvements to existing streets and highways. The re­ port (12) indicated that "the diffused pattern of travel to new, dispersed employ­ ment centers will emphasize the importance of circumferential highways ..." The accompanyi ng Civil Engineering Report (13) pointed to the need for an "inter­ mediate loop", and it was suggested that "some of the right of way heretofore ac­ quired for the proposed Fort Drive could be incorporated into such a freeway or parkway ..." |t was observed, however, that "in many locations the width re­ quired as well as the quality of alignment and grade would necessitate taking addi­ tional or alternative rights of way."

The importance of the proposed intermediate loop was stressed by the statement that "only by the construction of such a facility can the Inner Loop Freeway be spared excessive traffic which will otherwise jeopardize its efficient functioning before 1980."

Predicated on the indicated needs, extensive portions of the Fort Drive were proposed to be incorporated in the intermediate loop shown on the plan for a "Recommended Freeway and Parkway System for Three Million People" (14). Omitted from the loop were the Nebraska Avenue-Battery Kemble Park sections of Fort Drive in preference for an alignment following the Glover-Archbold Parkway and portions of the Fort Drive in the vicinity of Missouri Avenue between Fort Stevens and Fort Totten where Missouri Avenue was preferred because of its superior alignment. With the exception of the sections crossing Rock Creek Park and between Bladensburg and Benning Roads which were indicated as "freeways", the intermediate loop was shown as a parkway.

|n 1960 another highway study (15) gave further impetus toward channeling the con­ cept of a portion of the Fort Drive in the direction of an express highway. Location studies for the Northeast Freeway (Interstate'Route 95) proposed a route along the east side of the B & O Railroad to Vamum Street from which point the route veered northeasterly through the Michigan Park section, crossing several Roman Catholic institutional properties and entering the State of Maryland by way of a valley that for many years had been intended as the Fort Drive-Northwest Branch Parkway connec­ tion.

Objections by Michigan Park residents and the institutional representatives resulted in a relocation of the proposed |—95 alignment, shifting it to the land between Gallo­ way and Gallatin Streets reserved for Fort Drive. The revised |—95 (Northeast Freeway)

(12) Transportation Plan, National Capita I Region, The Mass Transportation Survey Report 1959, National Capital Planning Commission, National Capital Regional Planning Council. (13) Mass Transportation Survey, National Capital Region, Civil Engineering Report, DeLeuw, Cather and Company, Consulting Engineers, Chicago, January 1959. (14) ibid (15) A report on the location of the Northeast Freeway, Washington, D. C. The Clarkeson Engineering Company, Boston, June 1960. 5 alignment was reviewed by the National Commission in 1961 and approved, except for the portion affecting Fort Drive which was to be the subject of "further study." Except for the study which is the subject of this report, none has been authorized in respect to this specific relocation.

The proposal to utilize the Galloway-Gallatin Streets portion of Fort Drive for |-95 has been restated, however, by a study for the location of the North Central Freeway (16) which proposes an alignment along the east side of the B & O Railroad similar to that in the Northeast Freeway study and shows the location of Interstate Route 95 In the Galloway-Gallatin Streets section of Fort Drive resulting from the revisions described above.

By this time it was apparent that the concept of Fort Drive as a park facility was being overshadowed and, in some areas, crowded out by the express highway features which were now predominant. The Commission therefore directed its staff to confer with other agencies concerned, at coordinating committee level, to try to resolve the conflicting plans and conceptions of the use of Fort Drive. (17)

The subcommittee assigned to the review task reported on March 27, 1962 that in its opinion the concept of a park-type road connecting the Civil War fort sites was "no longer valid in its entirety because of changed conditions and the great increase (in traffic) (18) on all the cross streets and avenues it must intersect” and that improving the design standards of certain portions of the Fort Drive to those of a "modem parkway*' was not feasible because of right-of-way limitations in many sections; the impracticability, within reasonable economic limits, of increasing the right-of-way width, the difficulty of achieving continuity to the drive without constructing many major and costly grade separation structures, and the necessity of depressing a portion of the drive.

The subcommittee also expressed the view that part of the Fort Drive might be included in the intermediate loop and "still retain most of its original functions." It was suggested that the D.C. Highway Department study the feasibility of this idea. |t was suggested also that the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Park Service under­ take a joint study to determine the “specific segments" of the remainder of the Fort Drive that should be retained for park and recreational purposes and the extent of "excess land" that might be sold or transferred to others.

The subcommittee recommended that the portions of Fort Drive between the Fort Reno area and Fort Chaplin and between Suitland Parkway and the Anacostia Freeway be selec­ ted for these studies and that the study of the portion of Fort Drive south of Fort Reno be deferred.

(16) Engineering Feasibility Report, North-Central Freeway, District of Columbia and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, J.E. Greiner Co., Consulting Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland October 1964 (17) See memorandum of E. F. Price, Chief, Federal Planning Division, National Capital Planning Commission (File 545-100 No. 3) (18) It appears that the words "in traffic" were omitted here- 6 The subcommittee expressed the opinion that the portion of Fort Drive between Fort Chaplin and the Suitland Parkway should be retained as park area because of its rugged topography (making it unsuitable for highway purposes), and it was pointed out that the eastern leg of the proposed intermediate loop was,in part, duplicated by the Anacostia Freeway.

As a result of the foregoing, a list of "design and development objectives for Fort Drive" was prepared by the National Commission's staff and presented at the meet­ ing of May 10, 1962. These included:

1. Only that portion east of Rock Creek Park would be included in the study. (19) 2. Under no circumstances would Fort Drive be developed to provide more than four lanes. 3. Fort Drive would not become part of the interstate system and would not be designated as a truck route. 4. Grade separation is a less important objective than the protection and enhancement of adjacent neighborhoods. 5. Fort Drive would be developed as a "parkway" wherever possible, with the retention of park and recreation areas as a major objective and if necessary, additional land would be acquired for this purpose. 6. Maximum design speed would be 40 miles an hour."

Although the Commission records do not reveal definitive action on the design and development objectives, a letter (20) from the Commission's Director to the Director of Highways and Traffic indicates "tentative approval."

In his reply, (21) the Director of Highways and Traffic commented that neither the four-lane limitation nor the exclusion of trucks could prevail in the portion of Fort Drive used for the interstate route, and he questioned the limitation on grade separa­ tion structures, stating that the "Intermediate Loop . . . must be designed to vir­ tually freeway standards."

The National Park Service also indicated by letter to the Director of Highways and Traffic (22) that it would be "impossible and unjustifiable in view of changed eco­ nomic and social factors" for the National Park Service to proceed with construction of the Fort Drive as originally conceived and planned.

(19) Presumably the study recommended by the Coordinating Committee subcommittee. (20) Letter dated July 30, 1962 from W. E. Finley, Director, National Capital Planning Commission to Harold L. Aitken, Director of Highways and Traffic, D. C. Highway Department. (21) Letter dated August 6, 1962 from H. L. Aitken, Director of Highways and Traffic, to "William E. Finley, Director, National Capital Planning Commission.

(22) Letter dated June 25, 1962 from T. Sutton Jett, Regional Director, National Park Service to H. L. Aitken, Director of Highways and Traffic, D. C.Highway Department.

7 The letter further suggested that inasmuch as "most of the lands acquired for the Fort Drive project . . . were for the purpose of providing a right-of-way for a roadway" it would be in public interest for the N.P.S. to retain "only those areas . . . significant to park principles and purposes," the remainder to be made avail­ able for the intermediate loop in accordance with the May 10th Design and Develop­ ment Objectives. A transfer to the National Park Service of two five-acre parcels was made a condition of the exchange for that portion of Fort Drive which would serve the dual purpose of right of way for the interstate and intermediate loop roadways.

Thus, the Fort Drive which started with a beginning concept of a "wooded road— a picturesque circuit of the Capital" constituting "the most striking feature of the park system" changed first to a design concept of which the Bronx River Parkway in Westchester County, New York was the prototype and gradually to a more stream­ lined facility to meet the design criteria of the present-day muiti-laned, limited­ access highway.

It is true, of course, that portions of the Fort Drive are not included In the inter­ mediate loop and that a substantial percentage of the portion included in the loop is proposed os an express parkway serving only passenger vehicles (including ex­ press buses) and having among its design characteristics landscaping and close re­ lationship to the terrain.

It is accurate, also, that the linkage elements in the Fort Drive system were acquired for roadway purposes, and the history of Fort Drive furnishes strong support for the thesis that the present concept is simply an outgrowth or a logical evolution of the earlier scheme.

This premise can be countered with well founded evidence that the Fort Drive as now conceived has been shorn of its recreational-oriented aspects, that Its function in memorializing the Civil War forts is found only in the retention of the word “Fort" in the name of the facility and that instead of a parkway which will contribute to the amenities of the neighborhoods through which it passes, it will be a divisive element, impairing the livability of these areas because of the concentrated stream of heavy traffic, with its attendant hazards, noise and air pollution.

The fact that there are elements of truth in both points of view provides the basis for the present planning dilemma in which the Commission finds itself. The present pre­ dicament stems from a period in planning history when the concept of a parkway was associated with a leisurely Sunday "pleasure drive,” and the location of a parkway through a quiet residential area was an asset in terms of open space, marginal rec­ reational benefit and reasonable accessibility.

The urban express parkway of 1965 is very different from its predecessor. Essentially, it is an express highway, and although it may serve only passenger vehicles, its "park"

8 characteristics are confined generally to narrow strips of bordering landscaped areas or grass whose primary purpose is to prevent access to the roadway from bordering streets or properties, and which are not permitted to be used for recreational purposes of any kind. This is not to decry the express parkway or to deny the need for modern, functionally efficient facilities that will carry the main streams of traffic through or around the City of Washington. But it is evident that the solution to this vexing prob­ lem must be approached with consideration of the total effect that the highway (or parkway) will have, its socio-economic impact, its contribution to the enhancement or reduction of values, both real and intangible, in the neighborhoods through which it passes.

The view of Fort Drive has become a distorted one—much like looking through a pair of binoculars with only one lens in focus. It is necessary now to consider the Fort Drive problem in its totality and to bring the other lens into focus so that both highway and park factors can be viewed with equal clarity and given equal weight.

This is the reason why the current study is important, for the park and recreational as­ pects of Fort Drive have been all but lost because of the pressing need for solving the problem of moving vehicles.

Ill INVENTORY AND EVALUATION

To provide a well-founded basis for decisions regarding the ultimate role the Fort Drive will have in the evolving plan for the Nation’s Capital, it was necessary to examine many facets of the system as it exists today. The condition of the forts was observed. Existing recreation and other uses in the fort parks and their connecting links were noted. Cognizance was taken of the character of the park land, whether wooded or open; and the topography was studied to note areas that are level, rolling or steep and thus suitable for different types of use.

Particular attention was paid to eminences which provide opportunities for views of the inner city or the surrounding areas. The character of adjacent neighborhoods through which the system is channeled was observed to determine the influence the fort parks and their linkage elements have had on adjacent development. Existing or potential problem areas were pinpointed. Thus, the study of all of the various aspects of the Fort Drive System, both internally and in respect to the community around it, provided a comprehensive picture of the foundation on which plans for the future were to be laid.

The vast panorama of the fort parks and their linear connections as seen against the framework of surrounding neighborhoods can be described at length in writing, but this is no substitute for actual observation; for one of the most significant features of the study of existing conditions is the relationships that are evident, both within and outside the parks.

9 Appendix III

“Justification: The Fort Drive - Washington, D.C., Syllabus, Character of the Project,” 1938. Washington, D.C. Archives, D.C., Records, Central Classified Files: Engineer Department (ED), Engineer Department Case Files, 1897-1955, #248515. VW JUSTIFICATION DOCKET NO.______

THE FORT DRIVE - WASHINGTON, D.C.

Syllabus

Character of the Project

The Fort Drive is an historic and scenic parkway and boulevard develop-

ment 23 1/2 miles in length encircling Washington from the Potomac Palisades in

the west to the Shepherd Parkway on the south, connecting 16 of the more im­

portant forts and batteries of the system of fortifications designed and -in­

structed to defend the National Capital during the Civil War- It also connects

all major elements of the park system of the National Capital and provider a

convenient route of travel between each of the outlying residential areas

The genesis of the Fort Drive is to be found in the park plan of 1901-

developed by the McMillan Commission, on the basis of which ro much of the -

modern development of Washington has taken place. To realize the Fort Drive

plan was one of the reasons for the creation of the National Capital Fork

Commission in 1924» predecessor of the present National Capital Park and Plan­

ning Commission, which, over a period of more than 12 years, has been proceed­

ing to acquire the necessary land with appropriations mode by Congress for this

purpose. This program of land acquisition has involved on expenditure to date

of 2 1/2 million dollars for the Fort Drive proper, and of 1 1/2 million dollars for

the forts themselves, which in most cases are nuclei of large, outlying neigh­

borhood parks and recreation areas.

The route of the Fort Drive generally follows the height of land around •2- the original city of Washington at a distance of about four miles, of the down-town area. For a short distance the route follows the District Line but on the average it is located from or half to ono mile within the Dis­ trict.

Plans have beenn developed over a period of years to coordinate the

Fort Drive improvement as an integral part of the District Park, parkway, and highway systems. Those plans have sought to follow modern standards of city parkway design, with the number of intersections reduced to a minimum and with grade separations where crossing heavily travelled thorefaros, es­ pecially where there are natural opportunities to construct an over or under pass. A minimum roadway width of 40 foot has boon adopted throughout.

In several sections where the charactor of adjoining private development is of a high standard or of institutional charactor, the Fort Drive has util­ ized oxisting streets. In other sections border roads have boon planned for service to adjoining property, the development of which faces or will face the Fort Drive across intervening park areas.

Urgency of Development

In the northwest section the rapid expension of the city in the last decade has resulted in the building up of residential neighborhoods on pri- vato property adjoining the Fort Drive. Whore there are sections of the parkway drive not yet improved, the areas acquired are lying fallow and the public is not obtaining the benefit of the investment made in the land. -3-

Until recently sufficient acquisition was not completed to warrant undertaking

development on a comprehensive scale.

In the section between the Conduit Road and Fort Totton, both acquisition

and development-plans are now complete. A single project for the development

of this entire length of 7.75 miles is now most opportuno and highly desirable.

On complotion it would bring into usefulness a largo investment and provide a

very much needed facility for pleasure car travel between fully built up out­

lying residential neighborhoods.

Improvement at this time will permit coordination with other development

plans and improvement programs for local parks and District enroots, some of

which have boon delayed because of the lack of funds for a comprehensive devel­

opment of the Fort Drive.

Status of the Remainder of the Project

Land acquisitions for developing the remainder of the Fort Drive in the

eastorn part of the city arc now nearing completion and sufficient funds are

available for this purpose. Some improvement work in the area oast of the

Anacostia River has already been undertaken by the C.C.C. for the section through Fort Dupont, Fort Davis and southward. Another project is being con-

sidered for grading the section through the Shepherd Parkway which will con- nect with the George Washington Memorial Parkway to Forts Foote and Washington Appendix JJJ

T.S. Settle, “Legal Authority for Acquisition of Land and Construction of the Fort to Fort Drive, in the District of Columbia,” November 14-15, 1940. Record Group328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2. reproduced at the national archives t

I I

APPENDIX . November 14-15, 1940 I Meeting,

NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Legal Authority for Acquisition of Land i and Construction of the Fort to Fort Drive, in the District of Columbia. By T. S. Settle, Secretary, and Legal Adviser.

The question has been raised from time to tine as to the legal authority for acquiring the Civil War Forts in the District of Columbia, the parkway' strips connecting them, and now proceeding to construct the road­ way traversing the Forts and the connecting parkway strips. The purpose of this report is to show that legal authority. It is the belief of your Legal Adviser that this can best be done by recording the various steps chronologically.

Permanent Highway Plan

The Act of March 2, 1893 provided

"7. Permanent highway plan; preparation by commissioners; width of streets, - A plan for the extension of a permanent sys­ tem of highways over all that portion of said District not included within the limits of the cities of Washington and Georgetown shall be prepared by the commissioners. Said system shall be made as nearly in conformity with the street plan of the city of Washington as the commissioners may deem advisable and practicable. The highways provided in such plans shall not in any case be less than ninety feet nor more than one hundred and sixty feet wide, except in oases of existing highways, which may be established of any width not less than their existing width and not more than one hundred and sixty feet in width."

The Commissioners were engaged upon preparing this plan between 1893 and 1898. We are informed by some who are familiar with this work that serious consideration was given at that time to the construction of a Fort to Fort Drive. *• 2 *•

The McMillan Comission

. Nineteen Hundred, being the one hundredth anniversary of the moving of the National Capital from Philadelphia the newly laid out city of Washington, the United States Senate empowered the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia to arrange a proper celebration of the occasion, and to map out a comprehensive plan for the future development of Washington extending the L’Enfant Plan to cover the entire District of Columbia. The Senate District Committee., acting under its broad authority, created a ’’Park Com­ mission”popularly known as the "McMillan Commission”. This Commission was composed of the following famous, nationally known experts: Daniel H* Burnham, Charles F. McKim, Augustus Saint Coudens, and Frederick Law Olmsted,Jr. They submitted a comprehensive park development report, One of the outstanding features of this proposed park development was the "Fort Drive" Their exact report on this important subject was us follows:

"While for the reasons already discussed no systematic series of minor reservations has been selected for the outlying districts, it is necessary to mention the chain of forts which occupied the higher summits in the northern part of the central section, extend­ ing from Fort Stevens, near Rock Creek Park, to Fort Thayer, near the Reform School. The views from-these points are impressive in proportion to their commanding military positions, and they are well v/orth acquirement as future local parks, in addition to any claim their historical and military interest may afford. The boundaries, shown upon map Mo. D-288, are fixed mainly with respect to the character of the views from each fort end the possibility and importance of keeping them permanently open. The areas of the proposed parks are therefore somewhat adjustable, depending upon the attitude of the landowners.

"To connect the series advantage is taken of the street laid out for the purpose in the highway plans, but it should be increased to a more liberal width than now provided, which is only 90 feet between houses, the same as H street in the city. With the forts indicated on the map - Stevens, Totten, Slemmer, Bunker Hill, and Thayor - and with such other small parks and view points as may be selected later, a northern park circuit of great interest would thus be formed, having views off into the country in contrast with the principal inner circuit of larger parks, presenting views chiefly south toward. the city.

. "In the section east of the Anacostia a similar elm in of hill­ top forts murks tho points of most commanding view, With the Anacostia and the Potomac below and the city of Washington spread out beyond and the hills of Virginia in the distance, those are the most beautiful of the broad views to bo had in the District. Forts Mahan,. Chaplin, Sedgwick, Du Pont, Davis, Baker, Stanton, Greble and Battery Ricketts can bo linked together readily by means of the permanent system of highways, with a few modifications and some widening into a drive comparable in beauty with that along the Potomac Palisades, but utterly different in character. 3

"'In connection with this hill-crest circuit, starting from the northeastern end of Anacostia Park and returning to the shore of the .Potomac at the southern corner of the District, it is important to secure four other areas of considerable extent in the eastern section:.’’ (Map No... D-288 is appended).

Some of the recommendations of the McMillan Commission were carried out, others were not,. .

Washington Committee of 100 • on the Federal City

After the World War, many leading citizens realized that what was needed was a permanent Commission on the job day in and day out, year in end year out^ with a trained technical staff securing appropriations from Congress, acquiring land, making comprehensive plans, etc. Therefore, the Washington Committoe of 100 on the Federal City" was created under the auspices of the American Civic Association (now the American Planning and Civic Association’. ) Hr. Frederic A. Delano was its Chairman, The Committee was divided into various Sub-committees. These Sub-committees submitted their reports, and they were embodied in a preliminary report printed January 3, 1924'. This report was widely circulated and widely publicised; On Pages 36 and 37 we find the following:

"The Unfinished Plan.

"The Park Commission of 1901, composed of Daniel H. Burnham, Frederick Lav/ Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKirn, and Augustus Saint- Gaudens, recommended in their final report (Senate Report No. 166, 57th Congress:, 1st Session, )on pages 167 to 171 the acquisition of 53 additional tracts within the District for the proper exten- sion of the park system. Out of this number only six have been acquired. Many of the most beautiful and important of these tracts have been destroyed. Several are now in process of de­ struction. With the exception of the areas now built over or ’ being laid waste, the Map No, D-288 of that Park Commission Report showing proposed park extensions within the District, stands today as a working plan ready for immediate use in acquisition of park areas.

’’The following are some of the steps most urgently needed for park reservations inside the District lines, every one of which was included in the extension plan of 1901:

"1. Establishing a Fort Boulevard following the hills encircling the city and connecting the Civil War forts . Many of these are still well preserved, with long lines of breast- works still untouched:." -4 -

Act Creating The National Capital Park Commission

To carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 100, there was introduced into the 68th Congress, 1st Session, a bill ’’Providing for a comprehensive development of the park and playground system of the National Capital”. This bill was reported favorably by the Senate D. C. Committee on March 13, 1924. The accompanying report included the - following: '

"The Unfinished Plan.

"The Park Commission of 1901, composed of Daniel II. Burnham, FrederickLaw Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. HcKim, and Augustus Saint- Gaudens, recommended in their final report (S. Rep. No. 166, 57th Cong., 1st sess.), on pages 167 to 171, the acquisition of 53 additional tracts within the District for the proper extension of the park system. Out of this number only six have been ac­ quired. Many of the most beautiful and important of these tracts have been destroyed. Several are now in process of destruction. With the exception of the areas now built over or being laid waste, the. map No. D-288 of this Park Commission report, showing proposed park extensions within the District, stands today as a working plan ready for immediate use in acquisition of park areas.

The following are some of the steps most urgently needed for park reservations inside the District lines, practically all of which were included in the extension plan of 1901.

”1. Acquiring the forest-covered valleys and the springs tributary to Rock Creek, to protect the creek from pollution and preserve the flow of water already reduced one-half.

"2. Establishing a Fort Boulevard following the hills encircling the city and connecting the Civil War forts. Many of these are still well preserved, with long lines of breast­ works still untouched.

. "3. Widening Piney Branch parkway from Rock Creek to Sixteenth Street, so as to preserve the forest to the hilltops, embracing and preserving the Indian quarry there located. This is described by Doctor Holmes, of the Smithsonian Institution, us ’the greatest aboriginal bowlder quarry known.

"4. Extending the Piney Branch Parkway under and northeast from the Tiger Bridge. Unless this is done the bridge will shortly be rendered useless by complete filling of the east side of the arch compelling a grade crossing of the heavy traffic of Sixteenth Street. It would immensely relieve traffic conditions to divert passenger traffic down the valleys of Piney Branch and Rock Crook to Potomac Park, passing under nine bridges and wholly avoiding the grade crossings. ”5. Acquiring the Klingle Ford Valley, a natural entrance to the park from the west-, and a necessary connection between the upper and lower .Rock Creek Valley. .

"6. Acquiring the beautiful hardwood forest of the Patterson tract., lying within 1 1/4 miles of the Capitol Building, at an eleva- tion 95 feet higher than the Capitol and overlooking the entire city and fivers and hills beyond.

”7. Transforming the Anacostia River marshes above Bennings Bridge into a water park and the adjacent Mount Hamilton into a national arboretum.

. "8. Acquiring tracts in the outskirts at proper intervals for parks and playgrounds before they arc built up and the cost increased.

."9. Acquisition of all the lands fronting on the Capitol grounds not already in Government ownership, and of all the property on lower Pennsylvania Avenue near the Capitol, now occupied by unsightly buildings, and improving by proper park development all of such property, not required for Government buildings. This is essential to prevent objectionable struc­ tures fronting on the Capital Park and for the improvement of present unfortunate conditions on historic Pennsylvania Avenue.”

This Act finally became a law June 6, 1924. The ’’Park Commission" was promptly organized and proceeded to work. • .

Act Creating the National Capital Park and Planning Commission

In 1926, the Act was amended and it was made the "National Capital Park and Planning Commission", and its duties were enlarged. .

Capper-Cramton Act .

The National Capital Park and Planning Commission proceeded to map out a comprehensive park, parkway and playground system covering Washington and environs . Bills were introduced in the House and Senate to provide for this comprehensive system. On March 10, 1928, the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives held extensive hearings, at which time Lieut,- Col. U, S. Grant-, 3d, Major Carey H, Brown, and Charles W. Eliot 2d, and others testified. Their testimony, with maps and illus­ trations, was published, given wide circulation among members of Congress, Citizens and Civic Associations of the District of Columbia-. Mr. Charles W. Eliot 2d, reporting on the park and parkway areas to be acquired and developed, is quoted on Pages 23 and 24 as saying; , - 6 -■

"The Fort Drive.

"This map shows the Fort Drive (Plate XXI, ’Fort Drive’) around Washington... Oh the second row of hills during the Civil War a system of fortifications was constructed which occupied the highest points on those hills. From the point of view of scenery these forts dominate and command a large portion of the Washington region. The conception of the commission was that these forts, extending around the city of Washington, should be connected by a great parkway, so that a Senator or Representative or visitor could get on that route at any point and coms clean around the city and get the very finest views all the way around. That parkway would be about 23 miles long, and it should be wide enough to give the effect of a green strip all the way. We did not want to use it merely as a street. We wanted to make it a distinctive feature of the park system of the Capital.

"Some of those forts have already been acquired by the commission. Others have been within public or institutional areas for many years. The commission has just bought Fort Slocum, Last year we bought Fort Stevens. Fort de Russey is located in Rock Creek, and another fort lies within the boundaries of the National Training School. Thu commission has also bought Fort Bayard, Fort .Carroll, and Fort Stanton. We are gradually getting these sites and would like to push forward the project to connect them with a parkway. ’

"All these projects taken together arc shown on the large map of the District of Columbia (see Plate XVIII). You will again see the Fort Drive going around the city. You also . see sone of the neighborhood centers to serve the local com­ munities. Besides the neighborhood centers there are certain projects which I have not mentioned, which I can refer to very briefly here. One of them is in connection with the boun­ daries of Rock Creek Park. The boundaries of Rock Creek Park were never intended to stay as they are now. The land was purchased according to old property lines and not in accordance with the topography, so . that in many places private property comes down very close to the creek. The public does not appre- ciate that, because the private property lias not been developed, but as that property is built up there is going to be a real encroachment into the wildness of the park. It seems very desirable to acquire a sufficient amount of property to relieve that situation. Another feature is the possibility of the cliff along the Potomac, which would be part of the upper Potomac project, and which I referred to in speaking of that particular region. Still another is the parkway I spoke of going to Fort Washington." Photostat copy of map referred to by Mr. Eliot, Plate XXI, attached hereto, shows very clearly not only- the Fort Drive and connecting lands., to be acquired, but also a carefully laid-out roadway. The Committees of Congress fully understood that as soon as the land was acquired, the road would be constructed, just as they understood that when playgrounds were acquired, tennis- courts, swimming pools, field houses, etc., would be constructed thereon*

As a result of these recommendations, H. R. 26, ”An Act for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and for acquisition of certain lands in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia”, was passed by the House and extensive hearings were’ held thereon in March 1930. The bill authorized an appropriation of ($16,000,000, to bo made immediately available by Congress, and to bo repaid at the rate of $1,000,000 a year, to acquire lands within the District of Columbia. Other sections of the bill provided for the acquisition of the valley of the Potomac River, to be known as the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and for the extension of the parkways of Rock Creek, Sligo, Cabin John and Anacostia River and its tributaries into Maryland. At the Senate hearings, the author of the bill, Congressman Louis C. .Cramton, appeared and explained the various features of the bill. As to the park, parkway and playground lands within the District of Columbia, in the Hearings on Pages 5 and 6, Mr. Cramton is quoted as follows: .

"Now, as to the lands in the District of Columbia: The bill proposes, authorizes appropriations totaling $16,000,000 from the Treasury of the United States, to be made available so that commission can expeditiously proceed with the acquisi­ tion of the lands within the District, of Columbia that they have in their program. That includes nearly $6,000,000 for the acquisition of playgrounds. It includes the fort-to-fort drive that is being encroached upon, and if we do not move with more rapidity that drive will become impossible. It includes other interesting features; $16,00.0r000 is to be made available as expeditiously ns needed in currying out this program. Of course it takes two or three or four years in any event to carry on the negotiations and the necessary proceedings, so that it would not all be appropriated in any ... one year. It is to be appropriated as rapidly us the com- mission can use it to good advantage. That money advanced from the. Federal Treasury is to be returned to the Treasury by the District of Columbia $1,0.00,000 a year, and is advanced without interest. They return the $1,.000,000 a year without interest.. That $1,000,000.a year is the amount that is now being appropriated for this purpose. That million dollars is shared as between the District end Federal Government ju^t as the other expenses of the District of Columbia arc shared. At the present time we contribute a lump sum of $9,000,000. from the Federal Treasury toward the expenses of the District, "If next year there is in effect a percentage basis of 50-50 or 60-40, or whatever it may be, it would, apply to this $1,000,000 just ns much as to these other expenses of the District of Columbia; This does not disturb the fiscal relations between the Federal Government and the government of the District of Columbia. I do not change the fiscal relations between the Federal Government and the District Government, but "this $1,000,000 which we are now appropriating and which we will continue to appropriate year by year, if this bill does pass, is shared and the $1,000,000 a year which this bill provides for will be shared between the Federal and District Governments in accordance with whatever may be the fiscal relation policy of any particular year.

"There is in this bill great advantages to the District. V/e add nothing to their burden in this bill. We do say to them, in 16 years het job will be done, whereas under the present system it may run on 25 or 30 years, and not get as much as we will get now for the $16,000,000. Furthermore, they will, within two or three or four years, secure $6,000,000 worth of playgrounds for the District, Some: young oouple that has got a little .child growing up will have a playground in the neighborhood to use, and while he is paying the cost will have the use of it. If this bill does not pass, it will take 25, 30, or 40 years to acquire this land. That little child will have time to become a grandfather before these playgrounds are acquired."

Seldon has any piece of District legislation been so widely explained and so generally endorsed as the Capper-Cramton Act. When the Senate Committee reported the Capper-Cranton Bill favorably (Report No, 458, April 17, 1930), it listed the following Government agencies and organizations as living appeared at public hearings endorsing the bill:

"The bill has the approval of the District Commissioners, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the Director of the Budget, the Director of the National Park Service, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federation of Citizens’ Asso­ ciations of the District of Columbia, the Citizens’ Advisory Council of the District of Columbia, the District Congress of Parents, and Teachers, the American Civic Association, the American Engineering Council, the Garden Club of America, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Land­ scape Architects, the National Conference on State Parks, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, the Inter-Federa­ tion Conference (comprising Montgomery County, Md., Arlington County, Va., and the District of Columbia), the Washington Board of Trade, the V/ashington Chamber of Commerce, the ' District of Columbia Public School Association, the Mont­ gomery County Civic Association, the Bethesda (Md.) Chamber of Commerce, the Arlington County (Va.) Civic Federation, the ■ - 9 -

Organized Women Voters of Arlington County, the Arlington County Chamber of-Commerce, the Dupont Citizens' Association, the Northoast Citizens' Association, Capital View Citizens’ Association, and the Rhode Island Avenue Citizens' Association."

Appropriations 1935 - 1940

Beginning with the Fiscal Yoar 1935, the Bureau of the Budget required the Commission to submit break-down of the projects that they proposed to acquire with the funds requested. Therefore, during these years specific Fort Drive land purchase items were submitted to the Bureau of the Budget, then to the District Commissioners, then to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and the appropriations as finally passed contained these specific items for the Fort Drive. The number of items and total appropriations for each fiscal year were approximately as follows: ’

Fiscal Year No. of Items Total Appropriation

1935 7 $228,295 1936 11 230,707 1937 5 60,370 1938 6 272,194 1939 5 155,831 1940 4 79,669 :

Opinion

It is my opinion, therefore, after most careful study of legislation and appropriations pertaining to the Fort Drive, that Congress has been made fully aware of the intent to acquire a parkway connecting the old Civil War Forts, encircling the city from the Potomac River on the west to the Anacostia River on the Southeast, and that a connecting roadway was to bc constructed thereon. No further author­ ization is needed for the construction of this roadway. The acquisition appropriations were made with the intent and understanding that this roadway would be constructed. The roadway construction is authorized in the same way that the development of a recreation area is authorized when the land has been acquired.

All that is legally needed now is for Congress to actually . appropriate funds for the construction of the various sections of the Fort Drive roadway from year to year until the entire roadway is completed.

123803 Appendix KKK

“Fort Drive: Acquisition of Land,” Area, Cost and Date of Acquisition, February 1, 1947. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #2. FORT DRIVE Feb. 1, 1947

Acquisition of Land

• Area, Cost and Date of First Acquisition

Section Location Area in Cost First Deed Acres Recorded

O-P Nichols Ave. to Blue Plains 276.5b $ 357,752.91 11 April 1927

c Ft. Reno to Rock Creek Park 19.69 434,826.95 2b June 1929

E Ft. Stevens to Ft. Totten 34.77 394,154.27 23 July 1929

K Ft. Mahan to Ft. Dupont 33.74 74,037.52 16 Jan. 1930

J Anacostia Park to Ft. Mahan 34.66 134,876.63 21 Jan. 1930

D Rock Creek Park to Ft. Stevens 7.75 139,562.76 11 March 1930

M Branch Ave. to Ft. Stanton 55.10 140,271.67 19 Nov. 1930

N Ft. Stanton to Nichols Ave. 43.92 72,011.8$ 6 Dec. 1930

H Randolph St. to Ft. Lincoln 7.26 88,08b,03 23 Dec. 1930

G Along Eastern Aye. to Randolph St. 33.16 171,9b7.37 27 May 1931

A Conduit Rd. to Nebraska Ave. 54. 82 378,535.20 13 June 1931

L Fort Dupont to Branch Ave. 53.93 111,583.83 6 August 1931

B Nebraska Ave. to Fort Reno 3.30 130,916.18 9 Feb. 1932

F Ft. Totten to Eastern Ave. 56.4l 174,558.53 15 August 1939

TOTAL 715.07 $2,803,119.70

Average Cost of Property - $3,920.06 per acre

.09 per sq. ft.

Acquired at 169% of Assessed Value Appendix LLL

Approximate Acreage Purchased Under Capper-Cramton Act including those lands acquired for Fort Drive and the fort parks. In National Capital Region offices, compiled by Margaret Stratton. NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS

Approximate Acreage Purchased Under Capper-Cramton Act

Reference Res. Name of Area Total Area Approx. Area Perc No. on Map No. (Acres) Purchased Under Pali sade^htk Capper-Cramton Act 1 404 207.17 180.- 85 2 504 Palisades Playground 10.31 1.4 50 3 530 Ft.Drive-Pal.Pk. to Amer. Univ. 52.98 $2.- 22 4 529 Fulton & 49th St.. N.W. 14.- 2.5 17 5 521. Ba. Kemble Park 2.79 2.79 100 6 542 Ft.Drive-Amer. thiv. to Ft. Reno Pk. 3.36 3.3 98 7 470 Ft. Reno Park 26.71 9.- 33 8 515 Ft.Drive-Ft. Reno Pk. to R. C. Park 21.78 12.- 55 9 499 Ft.Drive-R. C. Park to Ft. Stevens Pk. 5.86 5.8 100 10 358 Ft. Stevens Park 3.95 3.7 __ 28. 11 494 Ft.Drive-Ft. Stevens Pk. to Ft. Slocum 8.89 5.- 12 497 Ft.Drive-Ft. Slocum Pk. to Ft. Totten Pk. 25*57 16.- 62 13 544 Ft. Totten Park 42.24 42.24 100 14 451 Ft.Drive-Ft. Totten Pk. to Barnard Hill 72.24 68.- 97 15 528 Barnard Hill 21.81 17.6 71 16 520 Ft. Drive - Barnard Hill to Ft. Llnaoln 7.26 7.2 22. 17 523 Ft. Drive - Ana. Park to Ft. Mahan Pk. 36.91 33.2 8? 18 475 Ft. Mahan Park 40.52 10.- 25 5oo Ft.Drive-Ft. Mahan Pk. to Ft. Dupont Pk. 36.38 12.2 33 Piney Run Parkway 1.- 1.- 100 21 Ft. Dupont Park 391.72 24.- 6 22 609 Ft. Chaplin Park 30.30 16.- __ $0. 23 612 Ft. Chaplin Rec. Center 2.84 2.84 100 2h 518 Ft.Drive-Ft.Dupont Pk. to Ft. Stanton Pk. 125.20 90.- 72 25 412 Ft. Stanton Park 67.84 60.- 88 26 519 Ft.Drive-Ft.Stanton Pk. to St. Eliz. Hos. 45.46 31.- 69 27 343 Sec. C - Anaeostia Park 68.32 9.5 14 28 343 Sec. D - Anacostia Park 85.95 11.3 13 29 343 Sec. E - Anacostia Park 79.82 8.- __ 10_ 30 343 Sec. F - Anacostia Park 283.07 ______3 31 343 Sec. G - Anacostia Park 192.84 40.- __ 2L. 32 421 Shepherd Parkway 231.44 19.- 21 ----- 33----- $01 Oxon Run Parkway 137.47 95.- 70 31* 522 Oxon Run Recreation Center 30.49 16.- 50 ----- 35----- T7IT Barry Farms Playground 4.51 1.- 25 36 561 Bald Eagle Hill 26.64 26.6 100 37 632 Congress Hts. Playground 4.4 “ 474 100 ------38“^ 627 Hillcrest Rec. Center 17.66 17.66 100 39 624 Pope Branoh Parkway 38.53 31.9 82 1x0 575 Battery Ricketts Park 3.67 3.67 100 610 Watts Branch Parkway 27.39 27.39 100 42 52ff Kelley-Miller Rec. Con. 14.-86 11.5 72 Langdon Park 19.20 6.- 31 339 Rock Creek Pk.-Piney Br. Pky. 1742.92 62.5 3 476 Taft Rec, Center 8.82 0.2 2 534 Edgewood Playgr’d. 4.98 3.5 70 -JiZ 552 Sherwood Playgr’d. 1.91 1.75 89

Page 1 v------

Approx. Area Reference Total Area Purchased Under No. on Map Res. No. Nane of Area (Acres) Capper-Cramton Act Perct 48 Rudolph Playgr’d. 5.28 5.28 1£X 517 1.5 49 464 Eokington Rao. Center 3.10 50 50 484 Randall Rec. Center 6.77 1.- 15 51 506 Bannaker Reo. Center . 13.08 3.5 __ 20 52 527 Hearst Playground 4.4 4.4 100 53 531 Piney Brand: Portal 0.92 0.3 30 54 631 Stevens Playground 5.27 5.2 99 55 432 Beach Parkway 20.52 19.- 90 56 5U5 Pinehurst Parkway 18.15 18.1 __ 25 57 3o0 Rook Or. fc Pot. Parkway 162.41 0.9 • 58 351 thru K Glover Pk’y. & Children’s Pl’y’d. 122.26 42.5 __ 35 59 356” Klingle Valley Parkway 8.31 2.- 21* 60 SlL Norsanstone Parkway 19.38 1.2 6 61 357 Whitehaven Parkway 42.90 8.2 61 62 630 Melvin 0. Mason Park 42.92 42.92 100 63 613 Friendship Pl’y’d. 1.14 1.14 100 64 1x78 Daleoarlia Parkway 9.54 3.14 33 65 1*33 North Portal 8.73 0.4 5 66 615 Trinidad Playground 2.49 2.49 100 67 Bund? Playground 2.45 2.12 88 68 626 Jefferson Reo. Cen. 3.59 2.5 70 69 Buzzard*s Point 0.46 0.46 . 100 70 63U Hoover Playground 0.33 0.33 100 71 635 Woodley ark t 2.95 2.5 80 72 639 Francis Rec. Center 1.27 1.27 100 73 6L0 Harrison Playground 0.99 0.99 100 74 644 Dakota Playground 0.39 0.39 100 75 ------N. T. h Va. Aves., N.W. 0.18 0.18 100 76 6E8 Luzon Aye. & lUth St.. N.W. 0.11 0.11 100 77 Payne Playground 0.37 0.37 100 78 65^ Forest Hills Pl’y’d. 2.75 2.75 100 79 655 Kaloraaa Park 2.07 2.07 100 80 579 Powell Reo. Center 2.52 2.32 81 81 611 Buchanan Rec. Center. 1.84 1.84 100 82 516 Harvard St. &*tr. 1.04 .2 20 83 1*02 Soapstone Valley 24.20 .47 2 84 EOEV Geo. Wash. Men. P’k’y. (Va.) 111.33 40.6 36

TOTAL 131*3.28

Additional area not snown on nap: l*01*M Geo. Wash. Men. P’k’y. (Maryland) 1087.76 31*0.07 31.

Cospiled by: M.B. Stratton Date: June 1, 191*5 Page 2

Appendix MMM

John Nolen, Jr., Director of Planning, Memorandum to Mr. Wirth, SUBJ: Fort Dupont Park, June 5, 1937. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 535, Parks and Reservations, Fort Dupont Park. I.. I

June 5, 1937.

MEMORANDUM TO MR. WIRTH;

Subject: fort Dupont Park.

In response to your request, the following are some of the most important facts relative to the establishment of Port Dupont Park: 1. Original acquisition of 16.55 acres was authorized June 25, 1912, and acquired by the District Commissioners; transferred to Park Office 1916.

2. National Capital Park Commission authorized enlargement April 30, 1925, after visiting the site. An acquisition of 81 acres was made October 28, 1925.

3. The N.C.P. & P.C. ordered study of Fort Dupont Park exten­ sion to Anacostia Park, July 16, 1926; approved extension October 15, 1926, for which first extension was made January 29, 1927. 4. On February 12 and April 27, 1927, Mr. Claries C. Glover made a dedication totalling 39.29 acres, in the heart of the present park project.

5. On July 6, 1928, at the Instance of Mr. Coldren, Secretary of the Coamlssion, a further extension of the park was authorized north of F Street, permitting the inclusion of a golf course and what la now known as Coldren Hill, named officially on July 31, 1931. 1 6. On July 26, 1929, Mr. Conrad Wirth, the Commission's Land­ scape Architect, presented a comprehensive plan and report, which was the basis for the development plan approved on September 27, 1934.

7. To summarize the land acquisition, the completed project totals nearly 400 acres, of which 267 have been acquired by the National Capital Park Commission and the Park and Planning Commission, at a cost of more than a quarter of a million dollars, or approximately $1000 an acre. The 39-acre dedication by Mr. Glover was an outstanding contribution. About 8 acres remain to be acquired.

8. Next to Rock Creak Park, Fort Dupont Park is the largest natural park urea in the city. It Is linked with the comprehensive park scheme by the Fort Drive and by the Connecting parkway between the Fort Drive and the Anacostia Parkway. The park has characteristics which make - 2 -

it unusually desirable for picnics and the dev el opinant of trails. ■ The northern part of the past: will Include a 9-hole golf course.

John Nolen, Jr. JW:HL Director of Planning. Appendix NNN

Map submitted with Capt. J.E. Wood, Assistant to Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, to Lt. Col. C.O. Sherrill, Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia, March 10, 1924. Record Group 328, General Records, Planning Files, 1924-67, 545-100, Fort Drive, #1. \ VfJ !

®PTRtWO

\>.:,w

x \ s'*** J

MAI* Ol' THi: PERMANENT SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS DI STI U CT Ol COLUMBIA PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER COMMISSIONER. D C. KEY BOULEVARD CIRCUIT FUTURE CIVIL WAR F0RT8 fJlOTAC (•XVK’S W /LU CM! = move • tnrftOiMi Appendix OOO

“Fort Drive Map,” In Christine Sadler, “One More Mile and the District Will Have a Driveway Linking Forts, Road to Pass Fortifications of Civil War, Will Run Along Rims of Hills That Make Saucer of City, Expected to Be One of Nation’s Most Scenic and Historic, The Washington Post. Sunday, October 10, 1937.

Appendix PPP

“Map of Fort Drive,” In H.Paul Caemmerer, A Manual on the Origin and Development of Washington: Senate Document No, 178. 75th Congress, 3d Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1939, 112. FORT DRIVE CONNECTING THE CIVIL WAR FORTS ENCIRCLING WASHINGTON