Key Group Opposes Parks Bill : Environment: Conservationists say GOP plan could remove Santa Monica Mountains and other areas from federal oversight.

An influential environmental group that once supported congressional efforts to overhaul the National Park Service is now distancing itself from a Republican-sponsored plan, warning that it could have a devastating impact on properties such as the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

The National Parks and Conservation Assn. is widely regarded as a barometer of environmental concerns and its reneged support is viewed as a sign of growing anxiety about the measure, which aims to reduce park service holdings and would make it tougher to add new sites to the system.

“We have decided that this is a bad bill,” said association spokeswoman Kathy Westra. “It has an anti-parks agenda. It’s designed to close parks.”

However, backers of the parks bill contend that the group is overreacting and say that both the Santa Monica Mountains and the Channel Islands National Park will not leave federal government oversight.

“I don’t think there is need for concern,” said Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who has signed on to the bill as a co-sponsor.

The parks association originally supported the measure in the belief it would help ensure the quality of each park system site. But after scrutinizing the fine print, the group is now dead-set against the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.).

Among other concerns, the parks association fears that the Channel Islands and Santa Monicas might be abandoned because of comparatively scant use and premium land prices.

Gallegly says the future of the area’s two parks, which comprise 4,000 acres, is secure. But expansion is another question--especially with the many fiscal constraints facing Washington.

“Like so many other things in this great country, you need to establish some priorities,” he said. “It would be great to have Smokey the Bear on every corner, but there are not enough dollars to . . . do all the other things we need to do.”

The bill calls on the National Park Service to issue an annual list of properties that ought to be eliminated from federal oversight because they bear only minor historic or geological significance. Instead, they would be transferred to state, county or city control.

One widely derided national park, for example, is Pennsylvania’s Steamtown, a man-made theme park devoted to railroad history.

If the park service fails to act, the law would create an independent park-closing commission that would make recommendations of its own. How much power the commission ought to have is a key aspect of the debate.

The bill is scheduled to be considered by the House National Resources Committee this week, although a delay is likely.

The idea of clamping down on the addition of new park properties has bipartisan appeal, as budgets grow tighter and existing parks suffer a mounting backlog of repairs, which estimates have put as high as $4 billion.

It is the idea of reducing the park service’s 368 holdings from Maine to Alaska to Hawaii that raises prickly questions, since each park has enthusiastic congressional backers.

A Democratic-sponsored bill very similar to the one now being pushed by Republicans was introduced during the last Congress and received overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. It passed the House without objection but was stalled in the Senate. When the bill was redrawn by the GOP, some say it began to stress park closings over maintaining the status quo.

“The bill was originally drafted to review the National Park Service in general,” said a congressional staffer familiar with the measure. “Unfortunately, now the park-closing aspect of the bill is being stressed. . . . Is this just a subterfuge to shut down parks?”

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), who supported last year’s bill, has said he agrees with the idea of scrutinizing the properties overseen by the park service. But Beilenson, who authored the 1978 legislation creating the Santa Monicas park, said he would strongly oppose any effort to remove the local parks from federal oversight.

No parks are mentioned by name in the versions of the bill now under consideration, but environmental groups say key language, coupled with behind-the-scenes discussions among lawmakers, make the Channel Islands and the Santa Monicas potential targets.

Tourism would be one of several criteria used to unload park holdings, and that could be troublesome for the Channel Islands, among the least-visited national parks in the state, said Brian Huse, director of the park association’s Pacific regional office.

The Channel Islands, which has a budget of $3.5 million this year, attracted 175,226 visitors in 1994, according to park service data. By comparison, Yellowstone National Park drew 4 million visitors in the same period.

As for the Santa Monicas, the high cost of land coupled with its status as an urban park make it vulnerable, Huse said. The Santa Monicas are also considered a national recreation area as opposed to a national park, a designation that gives the mountain range lower status within the park system’s catalogue of sites.

The budget for the Santa Monicas was not much greater than the Channel Islands--$3.9 million--but acquisition costs there have exceeded $150 million and prompted grumbling among some lawmakers. The 43-mile-long range between Griffith Park and Point Mugu State Park in Ventura County drew 384,324 visitors in 1994, the park service said.

“The Santa Monicas are one of those areas that quite a few members of Congress would rather see in the hands of someone else,” Huse said. “The Channel Islands are more solid because they have full national park status. . . . But every single unit of the system is going to be reviewed.”

Gallegly said the law is aimed at marginal properties that probably never should have fallen under park service oversight, not natural wonders like the Channel Islands or Santa Monicas.

Which interpretation is correct remains to be seen since the vaguely worded bill leaves it up to the National Park Service to define what kind of parks should merit federal protection.

Overall, the national park system includes more than 80 million acres. Under the bill, the park service would devise a comprehensive plan to guide the park system into the next century. It would include a mission statement for the park service, criteria for including future properties, and would define the term “nationally significant,” which is the current guide for acquiring federal lands.

Those criteria would then be used to determine which existing park service properties do not make the cut.

Among the concerns raised by the parks group is a provision to exempt the bill from the National Environmental Policy Act, a legal safeguard that requires a thorough review of an area’s animal and plant life and whether they are unique.

Environmentalists also note the omission of language ensuring that the savings realized from reducing park properties would be put back into the park system.