
A House Republican proposal would allow oil and gas leasing within ten miles of Chaco Culture National Historical Park/NPS file
It's too early to say what Republican plans will take root in Congress, but already there are proposals to both sell off federal lands and pull back National Park Service funding budgeted for helping parks respond to climate change.
Contained within a list of spending allowances and cuts, the outline from the House Ways and Means Committee's GOP majority lists, without elaboration, "sell federal lands" as one avenue to take to meet President Trump's economic package.
Rep. Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, in 2014 proposed having Ozark National Scenic Riverways transferred to state control. At the time, Smith was upset with Park Service plans to do away with 65 miles of unauthorized horse trails (while adding 35 miles of new trails to the currently approved 23 miles) and place some limits on motorboat usage.
The committee's proposal also projects a $17 million savings over ten years by lifting a restriction on oil and gas leasing within ten miles of Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico.
The document also proposes rescinding funding authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act the last Congress approved. Under that proposal, the National Park Service could lose $132 million for projects that improve the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management.
The GOP plan also calls for cutting $50 million for Endangered Species Act recovery plans, $40 million for the U.S. Forest Service to address severe weather impacts, and $200 million sent to the Presidio Trust to address deferred maintenance within Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
While the committee's proposals are still be reviewed, initial thoughts from national park advocates revolved around concerns for how the Park Service and National Park System could be impacted.
"What we know is the National Park Service has planned, announced, and scheduled 100 percent of its Inflation Reduction Act funding," Chad Lord, senior director of environmental policy and climate change, government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, told the Traveler. "Clawing back money now only delays preparation in parks for the millions of visitors going to see our country's natural and historical treasures. The longer we wait to protect these irreplaceable resources, the harder and more expensive it becomes, for parks and the communities and businesses whose economies benefit from them."
John Garder, NPCA's senior director for budget and appropriations, pointed out that the Park Service has been struggling with underfunding and understaffing for some time and said the proposed rescisions would further complicate conservation of the parks and benefits for the public that enjoys them.
“Our national parks and their dedicated staff steward the places that are so deeply loved by the American people and contribute millions of dollars to local economies, so Congress would do well to oppose any proposal to cut their funding further," Garder said. "Our parks have been losing thousands of staff over the decade despite the value they bring to the public and are struggling to adress the impact of climate change on their natural and cultural resources. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have come together before to invest in national parks, and there’s no good reason for them not to do so again to get our parks on track to care for our parks and their visitors.”