HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-15; City Council; 791-2; Response from James RidenourPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
o<
tote\
sit8
DEPT.
TITLE:RESPONSE FROM JAMES
RIDENOUR, DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/PARK
BARREL POLITICS (INFO)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept and file.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
As a result of the Commission's request to pursue action related to the Park Barrel Politics
article in Newsweek Magazine, the Council Legislative Committee distributed letters to the
appropriate persons regarding the re-instatement of a Park Service Panel to review the
selection of National Park sites. Please refer to attached.
EXHIBITS;
1. Letter from James Ridenour, Director, National Parks Service, June 1991
li
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.O. BOX 37127 ™
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20013-7127 REFERRED TO CltYKIMIAGER
IN REPLY REFER TO FOR RCSMMSl
Date:
9 1991
Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Thank you for your May 13, 1991 letter concerning criteria for
potential new units of the National Park System, and advocating a
re-instated panel to review potential park sites. We certainly
enjoy receiving mail from people who view the parks as "national
treasures", and I am pleased to respond to you.
I believe the "panel" to which you refer is the National Park
System Advisory Board, which in times past has been involved in the
review of potential new park units when the Service had an active
program. The Board is a panel of 16 persons from across America,
which includes representatives of certain types of expertise and
which advises the Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to
the National Park System and related areas (such as potential
national historic and natural landmarks).
In the past decade the Board has not been active in the review of
potential parks, partially because the Administration and the
Service favored consolidation of the existing System before
recommending further additions. We also have seen the initiative
on establishment of new parks shift toward the Congress, which
concerns us because we prefer to see professional studies done
before any site is added to the System. But the situation is
changing now, and we hope to reestablish a more deliberative
process for the evaluation and recommendation of new parks. To
answer you directly, the Board may have a role when a reestablished
process is in place.
We have also issued a brochure entitled, "Criteria for Parklands",
and I am enclosing a copy for you. It outlines our criteria for
significance, suitability, feasibility and management alterna-
tives—the four primary factors we consider in a study of potential
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
EXHIBIT 1 1916 -19911
12
Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
Page two
new areas. It also summarizes the study process that must precede
any recommendation for a new park. Our current practice provides
for extensive review within the National Park Service and the
Department of the Interior before studies are forwarded to
Congress.
Sincerely,
^Dir
Enclosure
13
a> a » — o1
a <p p < $
SffSft?
£. <D g '3
s- -»8 i i5 « a = IS 2.3 * = o »<
22. a a-
=s S 3
-
£. 1 » 2 * w
III P|
flllll5. ff o 5T CD QJ^3 "" 3. & 3o §• g- M « a)1.11 H 2. ao- </> o g- g o
=•. a)
a) a; a <
**i-«(0 '
— DJ =• o 3 a>«a^5*ff'Illll
» § ° o 8 » c §.3
Ills 111 If lifll
f^lf'fli I. HI!
? s 1 s a s s n»i»a*£ii gSlii.sl I?IfI
V T =T 3 V ,
C«-J g w. 2 03 W3CTOO3tua]»aj Sgaff S«"in-£*sn> • 2 ffiS'S 3.9 fig; 8.9 4S:s"a i:og» iS-SSsJag•»Q.™ «—3 ^3>S?S---'<-r«l""-0 0.^,0. Ms-S^O-oS®
2. <.
ITS
1 s,
3. 01
o <
o -a
!*Si2. a> 2. '
3 ? e.
is. =. X. ?• o» •=• = -!• o " =-O"uJ312.= ' a?»°5|-ozg?s_O0B) -i^53"™Q)J'— ^«<"0 = 1 ?J"<t*S3'''52o
""asf Slllflflllf (0 ^ ^
3S'|
^<2. =ill???*-!!S o-iffS as j 3
3?S<o-3gi|
Sow1 32353pl|?s-a*
n - o p O
-i- 1 s§i?iltin
'
IlllllllsilfilPil
r;ia|5.3^«a3s<<3?a = i