Public Comment to the National Park Service: The Proposed Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle
(Section 106 — Assessment of Effects)

— Summary #

I write to oppose the proposed Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle. The National Park Service should decline to authorize it. NPS’s own Assessment of Effects (AoE) establishes that this undertaking inflicts permanent harm on the nation’s most significant ceremonial landscape, that its “avoidance” analysis was a formality, and that it conflicts with the established legal and planning framework for the capital.

1 Congress has not authorized this arch, and an Executive Order cannot substitute for that #

The AoE grounds the project’s purpose in Executive Order 14252, not in any statute. But the Commemorative Works Act requires that a commemorative work be specifically authorized by Congress (40 U.S.C. § 8903(a)(1)), and 40 U.S.C. § 8106 independently bars any structure on federal grounds in the District “without express authority of Congress.” No executive order or agency process can supply authorization only Congress can give. NPS’s own mandate confirms the point: park lands may not be administered in derogation of the system’s integrity “except as directly and specifically provided by Congress.” 54 U.S.C. § 100101.

2 NPS concedes an adverse effect on more than twenty nationally significant historic properties #

Section 5.1 finds effects meeting 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1) on the Memorial Avenue Corridor, Arlington Memorial Bridge, Arlington House and the Robert E. Lee Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial and its cultural landscape, the National Mall, the Washington Monument, and numerous others — permanently severing the reciprocal Arlington House–Lincoln Memorial vista designed under the McMillan Plan to symbolize national reunification after the Civil War. This harm is agency-conceded, permanent, and irreversible.

3 The “avoidance” analysis is a formality, by its own admission #

Section 6 discloses that NPS evaluated only smaller heights of the same arch at the same location. It identifies no alternative site and no no-build alternative. It rejects the smaller options in part because they “were not considered representative of this milestone” of 250 years — an admission that height was chosen for anniversary symbolism, not preservation. And it claims a 250-foot arch harms the viewshed less than a shorter one because the vista shows through its 55-foot opening. That is not a credible avoidance analysis. 36 C.F.R. § 800.6 requires genuine evaluation of alternatives that avoid the harm — siting off the Arlington–Lincoln axis, or not building at all. That analysis was never performed.

4 Section 110(f) is triggered, and its heightened standard is not met #

The AoE admits the APE lies within a National Historic Landmark district and that Section 110(f) (54 U.S.C. § 306107) applies, requiring NPS “to the maximum extent possible” to “minimize harm” to the landmark. An agency that refused to consider a single site that avoids the harm, and that endorses the most damaging height available for symbolic reasons, has not minimized harm to the maximum extent possible.

5 The project violates the Height of Buildings Act, per NCPC’s own governing position #

The National Capital Planning Commission — the federal government’s central planning agency for the capital — has held since 1938 that the Height of Buildings Act is binding on federal buildings, and has applied that position consistently in project reviews. In its review of this project (NCPC File No. 8778), NCPC’s Executive Director’s Recommendation finds that, consistent with that longstanding position, the Act applies to the arch and that the project as designed is inconsistent with it. NPS should not advance an undertaking that the capital’s own planning authority has formally found to violate a federal height statute it has enforced for nearly ninety years. That NCPC believes the height could be adjusted to comply does not cure the defect in the current proposal; it confirms that the 250-foot design now before the public was put forward in disregard of an applicable federal standard.

6 The project conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital #

The proposal is squarely at odds with the federal planning framework governing the monumental core. The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, administered by the National Capital Planning Commission, is built to protect the L’Enfant and McMillan design legacy — the reciprocal vistas of the monumental core, the visual primacy of the established memorials, and the principle that new elements must complement rather than dominate that composition. An arch that severs the Lincoln–Arlington axis and introduces a 250-foot vertical mass into a landscape defined by horizontal monumental compositions contradicts the Plan’s central purpose. NPS should not advance an undertaking that its sister review agency’s own governing plan is designed to prevent.

7 The proposed mitigation is illusory for the actual harm #

The Section 6 measures address construction noise, vibration, and archaeology. Nothing in them mitigates the permanent obstruction of the viewshed — because nothing can. A permanent adverse effect that cannot be mitigated must be avoided, not papered over with a programmatic agreement.

✦ Requested action #

NPS should decline to authorize or permit construction; should not reach a consensus determination of adverse effect or execute the draft programmatic agreement; should require genuine analysis of off-axis siting and no-build alternatives consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Height of Buildings Act; and must in all events withhold authorization unless and until Congress specifically authorizes this work, as the Commemorative Works Act and 40 U.S.C. § 8106 require.

Respectfully submitted,
John Ayers · July 30, 2026