Position on H.R. 180 & MMPA Amendments Discussion Draft

H.R. 180 – Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025: NPCA opposes this bill, which threatens the very foundation of science-based recovery of the 600+ threatened and endangered species that call America’s national parks and their broader landscapes home. This bill would make it harder—not easier—for park managers and scientists to protect these species.

By requiring all state, tribal, and local data to be treated as “best available,” regardless of its scientific rigor, the bill risks flooding the process with incomplete or biased information. While data from these sources could be useful, there are many other sources, such as peer reviewed publications, work from universities, and work from species specific experts, that should serve as the cornerstone of agency actions. Decisions regarding threatened and endangered species in America’s national parks must be rooted in the best available science.

The bill’s new administrative burdens—demanding extensive data sharing, reporting, and litigation tracking—will divert scarce resources away from conservation and park management. The park rangers of NPS and wildlife biologists of NPS and partner agencies should be focused on protecting wildlife and habitats, not on paperwork and bureaucracy. The potential staffing burden this would cause should be considered in the context of staff cuts NPS and partner agencies have already suffered.

Finally, the bill’s emphasis on litigation and associated costs appears designed to discourage citizen, state, and conservation nonprofit engagement in ESA decision-making. Lawsuits are often the only recourse when disagreements occur around the ESA. Making it harder for the public to challenge federal decision-making undercuts our ability to ensure the ESA is implemented as intended. America’s national parks are irreplaceable havens for biodiversity. Weakening the ESA through this bill would put threatened and endangered species—and the integrity of our parks themselves—at risk.

Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Begich) - To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: NPCA opposes this legislation, which would fundamentally dismantle the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), shifting the focus of the law from conserving marine mammals as a national priority to enabling maximum extractive activities in our oceans. The harmful consequences for National Park marine life and coastal economies would be profound and potentially irreversible. The bill gives more power to extractive industries and less to Native co-managers, small businesses, and agencies. For example, if the government cannot meet new, shorter permitting deadlines, it automatically approves harmful projects without any meaningful review, local engagement, or Tribal consultation. With the potential for significant cuts to NOAA’s budget and the agency already woefully understaffed, it is likely that these deadlines will commonly be missed, and many permit reviews will become de facto approvals.

Marine mammals are central to the food security, culture, and identity of Alaska Native and Tribal communities, critical partners in ensuring the future of marine mammal conservation. The MMPA protections that help keep marine mammal populations healthy for subsistence harvest would be gutted by the proposed amendments. Marine mammals are also a foundation of our coastal National Park economies, drawing visitors from around the world to see whales, otters, polar bears, walruses, and seals. If these species disappear, so do the jobs, traditions, and futures intricately woven with them.