Report a Comment

As a former employee of the NPS, it was always fairly clear within the agency that what the areas administered by the NPS in DC needed "general management plans". Most other areas in the NPS have them and they help determine what uses are appropriate. Previous planning administrators in the NPS National Capital Region (NCR) objected to developing management plans in DC in order to provide maximum ability to horse trade with the city and other entities (NCPC, Fine Arts), and to re-direct monuments and memorials to other "vacant" park locations. If management plans were developed for the areas in DC the plans would spell out what suitable uses could take place. The planning process would also require public involvement and a more visible decision making process. The NPS would have less opportunity for abitrary action, and the public would have more opportunity to help define uses for areas that have both local uses and, in some cases, national significance. Absent site specific plans for the areas, the only thing that the NPS has to guide it are the general regulations applicable to all of the areas it administers. So parks in DC do indeed end up being administered like Yellowstone or Yosemite. But if the park specific plans for DC said otherwise, then they would be administered according to the park specific plans/regulations. The NPS has some pretty extensive areas that it administers in urban settings (Golden Gate NRA in San Francisco, Gateway NRA in New York, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles, etc.)so it has the experience and expertise to manage parks under its responsibility in DC. Pressure does need to be applied on the NPS and the Secretary to develop plans for the park areas--just like it has for other urban parks.

by Old Park Guy on Aug 1, 2011 9:33 pm • link • report