Bill Would Shut The Gates At Some Park Service Sites

Remember the military base closure commission? Ready for a sequel?

Imagine a similar commission for the National Park Service - an independent group that would decide which parks, birthplaces, monuments or other sites to close, and which to keep open.

That’s what could happen if Congress approves a controversial bill aimed at whittling down the size and cost of the money-losing Park Service system.

The bill recently won majority approval from a key House committee. The full House could vote on the measure in September.

Supporters say the bill merely attempts to make the Park Service more cost-efficient by directing its limited budget to those units that represent the true meaning of a national park and weeding out those that don’t.

“In short,” Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., has written, “it would ensure that taxpayers get their money’s worth out of the park system.”

Park preservationists are angry about the proposal, which they call the “park closure bill.” They say the public would be outraged, too, if its ramifications were widely known.

“They say they’re trying to find ways to make the Park Service more efficient,” said Alice Rita, spokeswoman for the National Parks and Conservation Association. She added, “You tell me what they’re trying to do.”

If the bill is adopted, some of the less-frequented Park Service sites could be looking at their last days.

Sites ousted from the Park Service could receive a lesser federal status or could be turned over to states, local governments or private groups to operate.

Earlier this year, Hefley introduced a bill that would direct the Park Service to draw up a priority list and management plan for its parks. The bill also would establish an independent commission to review the Park Service plan and recommend to Congress park units that should be closed or modified.

According to the General Accounting Office, since the first national park was created at Yellowstone 124 years ago, the Park Service has grown to 368 units covering roughly 80 million acres, including parks, monuments and historic sites.

The Park Service’s annual budget is about $972 million. Visitor fees yield about $100 million a year.

Because the Park Service spends much more than it takes in, the agency now has a $4 billion to $6 billion backlog in undone maintenance and construction, studies show.

Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, chairman of the parks subcommittee, cites Independence Hall in Philadelphia, with its faulty roof and electrical system, and the poor road conditions along Virginia’s Skyline Drive as examples of where more money is needed. Other large national parks are also suffering and in need of overhauling.

Conversely, said Hansen, the Park Service has spent close to $80 million on the Steamtown National Historic Park in Scranton, Pa., even though he says the place has “little significance to American railroad development.”

“There are some parks that need to be pulled from the Park Service system,” said Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., a sponsor of the Hansen bill and ranking member of the parks subcommittee.

Under the Hefley bill, the 54 units with “national park” in their names, such as Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Everglades, the Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah would be exempt from the process.

Critics of the Hefley bill say the danger lies in what criteria the commission would use to whittle down the Park Service.

“I think the sites we’ll see targeted are the urban parks, the battlefields and the famous birthplaces,” said Rita, of the parks and conservation association. “The ones that don’t fit the typical definition of a park.”

Rita contends there are ways to help the Park Service without giving up property. She says parks should be authorized to raise user fees and concession laws should be rewritten so that parks, not concession owners, keep more of the sales revenues.