Reagan Record on Parks Gets Mixed Marks

When the Reagan Administration came to office, the President’s appointees promoted an environmental policy that conservationists predicted would produce turmoil for the country’s national parks. There was talk by political appointees of turning over federal ranger activities to private companies, closing parks and expanding drilling and mining on parklands.

Nearly eight years later, the forecasts of doom have proved exaggerated: The conservationist lobby and Congress balked so loudly at the outset that the more extreme ideas never became formal proposals. Maintenance of parks under Reagan, while insufficient to meet an enormous backlog of needs, at least equaled that of other presidencies. The Administration even surprised its critics by choosing a well-respected conservationist to head the Park Service.

Fears Well-Founded

The record, however, also shows that the early fears of many environmentalists were well-founded. The Administration dragged its feet in acquiring private lands within park boundaries, failed to initiate legislation for new parks, advocated a policy that emphasized use at the expense of conservation and fought and often overruled the conservationist chosen to run the service, according to park officials and environmentalists.

“The Administration has been good, but no better than past administrations, at funding maintenance and facility construction,” said E. Destry Jarvis, a vice president of the Washington-based National Conservation and Parks Assn., a park watchdog group. “But there’s no question in my mind that this Administration is the worst in history regarding parks when it comes to the issue of resource protection and conservation.”

Here, on this rugged stretch of snow-streaked mountains and sage-covered valleys, the Reagan Administration’s legacy includes new roofs on park buildings, new campground furniture and resurfaced parking lots, a donation box or, as it is often derisively called, a “poor box,” in the visitors center for visitor donations, an entrance fee that has jumped from $2 to $10, 1,000 additional acres obtained in a land swap and a costly land condemnation.

The new roofs and paved roads came during a widely praised $1.1-billion maintenance program under former Interior Secretary James Watt for deteriorating buildings, roads, sewers and electrical systems. The sudden gush of money was typical of the Park Service’s traditional bust-boom cycle of funding: Parks generally receive large infusions of money for a few years and then go several years without enough money to keep up with repairs. Finally things get so bad that another expensive program is launched.

Despite substantial improvements under the Reagan program, the next administration will find a lot of work remains to be done. A recent report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that $1.9 billion is needed for repairs, construction and trail rebuilding at the nation’s parks, recreation areas, national monuments and other federal scenic areas.

About half of the money is needed for road repairs. At nearby Yellowstone, for example, the roads are so bad in some spots that raised asphalt scrapes the undercarriage of passing vehicles. At the Grand Teton, many of the roads are pocked by holes and a new water and sewer system is needed. Superintendents at other parks said in interviews that they need new toilets for visitors, new employee housing, larger visitor centers and money to build backcountry trails and bridges.

The increases in entrance fees, initiated by the Reagan Administration, are generally supported by park superintendents. The Administration has proposed earmarking about $20 million of $52 million raised by the higher fees in 1988 to go back to the parks as additional monies for the preservation of plants and wildlife, research and guides--a condition insisted on by Congress. The rest pays for programs previously funded by taxpayer revenues. At most national parks, entrance fees for a carload went from to $2 to $5.

The Reagan Administration also sought to meet park needs by seeking private donations. Since Reagan took office, the parks have put out donation boxes and published “gift catalogues” featuring different projects to which the public can contribute. Grand Canyon Supt. Richard Marks said he personally had disliked the move because he did not feel it was part of the parks’ “mission” to raise money. He added, however, that no visitors have complained about it.

At Yosemite National Park in California, Supt. Jack Morehead is pleased at the ability of the parks to get help from the public. A nonprofit group called the Yosemite Foundation this year gave $300,000 to the park. Among the projects funded by the San Francisco-based group last year were the restoration of a meadow, the removal of an old sewage treatment plant in the congested valley, the reintroduction of bighorn sheep to the park, the rebuilding of trails and the hiring of intern summer guides.

At the Grand Teton, the donation box is a modest affair: a small wood and glass container against a wall in the visitors center. “We tried to low-key it,” said Supt. Jack Stark with a smile. “If we were worried (about getting more money), we would have it out in the middle of the room.”

The Teton park under Reagan acquired about 1,000 privately owned acres within its boundaries under a land swap between the private owners and the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency that, like the Park Service, is under the Interior Department. While such transfers have been a trademark of the Reagan Administration, land purchases have not.

About 3,500 acres within the Grand Teton remain in private hands, many of them dwellings surrounded by fences and “No Trespassing” signs. A view across a range of silvery sage and yellow dandelions is abruptly broken by a small cluster of rectangular buildings, all of them privately owned. In one corner, barbed wire and fencing surrounds a house, three sheds and what appear to be junked automobiles.

In 1982, one of the private landowners in the park built a house on his property. Another owner followed his example. Stark recommended that both properties be condemned: a process under which the government takes the land and compensates the owner at a price set by a court. The Administration declined to act.

It was not until two years later, after one of the owners had subdivided his property to allow for up to 50 houses, that the Administration agreed to condemn it. By then, the subdivision had made the property substantially more expensive to acquire. The other property remains in private hands.

Parks are not considered completed until private holdings within their boundaries are purchased and returned to their natural state. Budget figures show the Reagan Administration generally requested less money than its predecessors to buy such holdings.

According to one official involved in acquisitions, the Administration dragged out such purchases by requiring an extra layer of approval by a political appointee in the Interior Department. Some park superintendents said in interviews that they were not allowed to acquire private holdings even when the owners wished to sell them.

Nixon and Ford Years

“There is no question in my mind that our acquisitions, in number of people employed and number of tracts and acres acquired, was at its peak during the Nixon and Ford years,” said Willis Kriz, chief of the Park Service’s land resources division and a participant in land buys for parks for 23 years. “That carried into the Carter years but I would say our acquisitions began to decline probably in the tail end of the Carter Administration, and that has been continuing now in the Reagan Administration.”

A superintendent of one of the country’s premier national parks said the Reagan officials generally put individual rights above the national interest when it came to park protection. “It was my experience they would take the side of the local interests,” he said. “The federal system was suspect.”

Since Reagan came to office, seven new places have been added to the national park system, including a full-fledged national park, a national historic site, a national monument, a preserve and two historic trails. The Administration reluctantly supported two of them, opposed three of them and backed the special designation for the trails on the condition that they include no land purchases.

At times, the Administration’s reluctance to purchase new parks or buck local sentiment has been at odds with the views of the Park Service director, William Penn Mott Jr.

For example, Mott has long favored creation of a Tall Grass Prairie National Preserve in Oklahoma. But when a hearing was held on legislation that would create such a preserve, Mott testified that no government money should be spent to create it. That was the Administration’s position.

When pressed by a member of the committee, Mott hedged, leaving the impression that he himself favored a government purchase. He said he told a senator that Congress in “its wisdom” should decide whether to provide the money.

Debate Over Wolf

On another matter--whether the endangered gray wolf should be reintroduced into Yellowstone--Mott differs more openly from the Administration. Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel, under whose jurisdiction Mott serves, has told fellow Republicans that he believes the wolf should not be reintroduced until the objections of nearby ranchers are resolved. The Wyoming Republican congressional delegation opposes the wolf’s reintroduction.

Mott favors it. At a recent banquet here held to mark the end of a four-day conference of park superintendents, Mott passed out pin-on buttons that said “Bring Back the Wolf” over a picture of the animal’s head. With a flick of a switch on the back of the button, the wolf’s eyes lit up, blinking on and off in yellow.

In the darkened banquet room, Mott stood to address the superintendents. As he gave his speech, the wolf’s eyes flashed on and off from the lapel of his suit. The park superintendents showed their approval by howling like wolves.

“They (the Administration) would love to fire him,” said a high-level park administrator, who spoke only on the condition that he not be identified. “The guy’s intractable.”

Hodel chose Mott after the White House suggested him for the job. He came from California, where he had headed the state park service under then-Gov. Reagan and earned a national reputation for excellence. Former National Park Service Director George B. Hartzog Jr., who wrote a book about the recent history of the Park Service, predicts that Mott “will go down in history as a legendary figure in parks.” His appointment won the Administration, especially Hodel, kudos from conservation groups.

Many in the Administration now privately regret their choice because they can neither control Mott nor fire him without creating an uproar, this official said. Without Mott, the official added, many park policies would have been overturned by Interior.

Others contend that Mott’s effectiveness has been limited because of his age. At 78, one year older than Reagan, these critics say, Mott often is forgetful, “spacey,” unfocused--traits that longtime acquaintances say they saw in his youth. Some of Mott’s ideas seem off the wall. For example, Mott recently said he thinks that Yosemite should be closed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to Californians so other Americans can enjoy it.

Called a Figurehead

His critics in the park system and in Congress also contend that he has been little more than a figurehead, overruled by higher level Interior officials. While Mott travels the country visiting parks, former Assistant Interior Secretary William P. Horn was calling the shots, they say.

Indeed, there are plenty of examples that show Mott’s views have not always prevailed on Park Service matters. When an oil company last year asked to do exploration at the Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, the Park Service recommended an environmental impact report. Horn overruled the service, saying a much quicker review would be sufficient. Eventually the matter went to court, and the Administration backed down. The permission for exploration has been withdrawn pending a consideration of a full review.

Political appointees also have overruled the Park Service’s recommendations for bonuses for regional administrators, according to park sources. A high-level park source said bonuses were “maliciously” denied to employees who had bucked the Administration line on various park issues.

Mott himself acknowledged in an interview that his superiors have bypassed him and gone directly to park staff on various issues, which he called “bad procedure.”

“We had a little trouble to begin with but I must say Bill (Horn) has worked with me on projects and I have not been reprimanded by Bill . . . or told not to do something,” Mott said.

Rep. Bruce F. Vento (D-Minn.) chairman of the House national parks and public lands subcommittee, says Park Service employees who testify before his panel are often “limited and disciplined” by the views of Reagan’s appointees, and park decisions at times seem motivated more by ideology than sound professional park policy.

Political Site

Despite unanimous opposition by a parks advisory board, Vento noted, Hodel recently decided to designate as a national historic landmark the Maryland farm where Whittaker Chambers in 1948 led Richard M. Nixon to the “pumpkin papers.” Chambers, who has since died, is considered a hero by conservatives. The find led to the perjury conviction of Alger Hiss, a former State Department official accused of giving secrets to the Soviets.

Horn, responding to Vento’s charges, denied that Park Service employees are punished for dissent and overruled for political reasons, although he acknowledged occasional “professional disagreements.”

“I think it’s creative tension,” said Horn, who, facing the end of the Administration, resigned last week to take a job in a private law firm.

Several park superintendents said in interviews they had been questioned or “challenged” by the Administration on decisions involving banning or limiting commercial and recreational activities in parks. Some said they received similar interference under the Carter Administration. Most contended that the Reagan Administration generally backed down after they presented evidence for their decisions.

One superintendent of a well-known national park said that although he personally has not been affected by meddling from political appointees, he does not trust them to back him in controversies with private industry.

“There’s just this feeling that you won’t get their total support on some issues,” like oil and gas development on park boundaries, he said. “The impression exists that somehow the Administration is more pro industry than they are conservation.”