U.S. Park Service Bill Raises Local Concerns : Conservation: Group says plan to overhaul agency may jeopardize the Santa Monicas and Channel Islands facility.

An environmental group that once supported congressional efforts to overhaul the National Park Service is now distancing itself from the Republican-sponsored plan, warning that it could have a devastating impact on Ventura County’s two federal parks.

However, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who has signed onto the legislation as a co-sponsor, contends that the National Parks and Conservation Assn. is overreacting, and he says both the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Channel Islands National Park will remain in the federal parks system.

“I don’t think there is need for concern,” Gallegly said. “I am on record as to how I support the Channel Islands and how I support the Santa Monica Mountains.”

The future of the two parks themselves is secure, Gallegly said, although expansion is another question, especially with the many fiscal constraints now facing Washington.

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

The parks group, an independent watchdog of the nation’s parks, originally had supported an effort to reduce park service holdings that are not of national significance and make it tougher to add new parks to the system. But after scrutinizing the fine print, the group is now dead-set against the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.).

“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.”

The bill calls on the National Park Service to issue an annual list of properties that ought to be eliminated from federal oversight. 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 should have is a key aspect of the debate.

The bill is scheduled to be considered by the House National Resources Committee this week, although congressional staff members say the vote probably will be delayed another week to nail down more details.

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 for repair and upkeep--which estimates have put as high as $4 billion.

It is the idea of reducing the number of current park service holdings, which currently number 368, that raises prickly questions, since each park has enthusiastic congressional backers.

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

“The bill was originally drafted to review the National Parks Service in general,” said a congressional staff member familiar with the bill. “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, 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 additions to future lists of targeted parks.

Attendance would be one of several criteria used to unload park holdings and could be troublesome for the Channel Islands, which is among the least-visited national parks in the state, said Brian Huse, director of the park association’s Pacific regional office. It is the high cost of the Santa Monicas that makes them vulnerable, Huse said.

The Channel Islands park, which has a budget of $3.5 million this year, attracted 175,226 visitors in 1994, according to park service data. The budget for the Santa Monicas was not much greater, $3.9 million, but acquisition costs there have exceeded $150 million in the last 17 years and prompted grumbling among some lawmakers. The Santa Monicas 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. We’re concerned that someone like Mr. Gallegly is signed onto this, because he has two national parks in his district.”

Gallegly, however, says 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 the Santa Monicas.

Which interpretation is correct remains to be seen, since the bill leaves it up to the National Park Service to define just what kind of parks ought to be national parks.

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 service and criteria for including future properties and define the term “nationally significant,” which is the current guide for acquiring federal lands.

These 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 mandates a review of environmental impacts; and the omission of language ensuring that savings realized from reducing the number of parks would be put back into the park system.