Position on House FY27 Interior Appropriations

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. We know that funding and staffing our parks and their supporting offices is one of their most urgent needs; equally, we recognize the importance of protecting the natural and historic resources in our parks. Accordingly, on behalf of our 1.9 million members and supporters nationwide, we write to regretfully express our opposition to the FY27 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

While we commend the bill’s rejection of the president’s draconian cuts, there are several policy riders that deeply concern us, and the cuts to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies have worrisome implications for the health of our national parks, their wildlife, staff and visitors. We are also disappointed with the cuts to historic preservation and the missed opportunities to demonstrate oversight of the administration’s devastating actions undermining and decimating National Park Service (NPS) staffing and the diverting of funds inappropriately towards construction projects in Washington, DC, that have not undergone the necessary review process.

We oppose cuts to agencies relevant to the health of national parks, their natural and historic resources, and the landscapes in which they thrive: NPCA opposes the deep cuts in this bill to agencies that protect and restore park landscapes and communities. The bill includes a $1.8 billion (20%) cut for the EPA, including a $169 million (46%) cut to EPA enforcement and $216 million cut to EPA science programs that would hamper efforts to enforce our laws and protect clean air and water nationwide. These cuts would increase pollution, harm air and water quality in our national parks, and endanger the health of visitors and nearby communities. These cuts include a $576 million cut to water infrastructure programs supporting safe drinking water and wastewater systems in upstream and gateway communities and a $31 million cut to EPA’s Geographic programs—watershed restoration efforts that support restoration and protection of park water resources across the country.

Moreover, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and US Geological Survey (USGS) also see cuts of $82.4 million (5%) and $52.5 million (3.7%) in this proposal, which only undermines already under resourced bureaus that are key collaborators in NPS’ efforts to protect park wildlife and natural resources, as well as the health of park staff and visitors.

We are also disappointed to see the proposed 25% cut ($2.085 million) to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), which plays a critical role in ensuring federal agencies comply with historic preservation laws and responsibly consider impacts to historic and cultural resources. Reducing funding for ACHP would weaken the very oversight and coordination needed to protect America’s historic places at a time when these resources are already facing growing threats.

The bill also includes numerous policy riders that would harm national parks, public lands, wildlife, and nearby communities. We strongly oppose:

• Section 131, which blocks implementation of three Endangered Species Act regulations. For 50 years, the ESA has been a critically important tool in conserving and restoring more than 600 threatened and endangered species that depend on habitat in national parks. Maintaining strong ESA regulations is essential to keeping vulnerable species on the path to recovery.

• Provisions that undermine recovery and restoration of the grizzly bear. Grizzly bears were driven to the brink of extinction by eradication programs in the mid-19th century. Thanks to the ESA, the work of state, Tribal, and federal scientists, and the willingness of communities to live with bears on the landscape, grizzly populations are moving toward recovery. Congressionally removing protections in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem under Section 141 and the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem under Section 149, while preventing recovery efforts in the North Cascades under Section 127 and Bitterroot under Section 128, would undermine decades of work and public investment.

• Provisions that remove or limit ESA protections for other national park species, including the northern long-eared bat under Section 124, gray wolf under Section 125, and wolverine under Section 126.

• Section 133 blocking the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from implementing or enforcing the Conservation and Landscape Health rule, a finalized rule that is already in force. The rule helps protect parks from nearby development on other federal lands and recognizes conservation as one of BLM’s multiple uses. Blocking implementation would disrupt an ongoing regulatory process and weaken protections for landscapes connected to national parks and integral to their health.

• Section 134 blocking implementation of the 2025 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan. That plan provides balanced guidance for recreation and protection across 1.9 million acres designated under Presidential Proclamation 10286 and reflects years of Tribal consultation, local input, and public engagement. Reverting to the 2020 plan, which applies to only one million acres designated under Presidential Proclamation 9682, would create confusion and uncertainty for the full Monument, adjacent national parks, Tribes, visitors, local communities, and businesses.

• Section 139 targeting the 2024 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Ten-Day Notice rule. Although the Trump administration has already rescinded the 2024 rule, this provision would block any future administration from reinstating it. The 2024 rule empowered communities to directly alert federal regulators of violations at coal mine sites for prompt action rather than waiting for state regulators to respond. Under the current rollback, states may exempt mine permits and other programmatic issues from the Ten-Day Notice process, and federal regulators may forgo site inspections when violations are reported. Local communities must retain the ability to elevate concerns to federal regulators when state-level options are inadequate.

• Section 142 barring the designation or management of wilderness within Big Cypress National Preserve. Wilderness is a valuable conservation tool for protecting sensitive habitat and imperiled wildlife. While NPS is not currently pursuing wilderness designation in the preserve, the habitat conservation situation in Big Cypress has become dire. Wilderness designation must remain available as a future pathway to better protect threatened habitat and wildlife while also protecting Tribal rights and access to lands they have stewarded for generations.

• Section 441, which forces the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases for sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. This provision bypasses the normal leasing process, gives rights to a foreign mining company, denies Tribes and communities a meaningful opportunity to weigh in, and bars courts from reviewing the leases or the process.

• Section 443 for the inclusion of H.R. 1366, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which would provide mining companies greater access to public lands to dump mine waste. While this version has improved from last Congress — including by addressing some legal ambiguity for claimants inside national park units — concerns remain about the clarity of lands to which the bill would apply. Given the current administration’s mining policies, these mill site provisions are likely to be abused by mining companies to the detriment of national parks and connected public lands.

• Section 445, which blocks the Secretary of the Interior from using the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to protect national parks and other public lands and waters from mineral extraction through mineral withdrawals. This provision may also harm national parks by preventing the Director of the National Park Service from using the Geothermal Steam Act to request that geothermal leases not be offered in areas where development would have detrimental effects on national park resources.

• Section 503, blocking implementation of the fluid mineral leases rule. This rider is both unnecessary and troubling. It targets a rule that is already partially rescinded through administrative action and is currently going through the regulatory process for updates. It includes no provision reverting to previous rules and could have serious consequences for oil and gas royalties, which help fund conservation programs and provide revenue to states and Tribes. It would also rescind requirements that oil and gas companies pay their fair share and clean up after themselves, leaving taxpayers responsible for remediating wells no longer in use.

Missed opportunities: We commend provisions in the bill that support the Land and Water Conservation Fund and otherwise provide clear direction to the administration that support the committee’s investments in our national parks and public lands. We are therefore dismayed that there is a lack of clear direction and oversight in the bill on other matters pertaining to our parks. Specifically, in the context of the administration forcing the loss of more than 4,000 National Park Service (NPS) permanent staff, a loss of more than 24%, we regret that there is no statutory language mandating that the administration rehire needed NPS staff, specifically to FY24 staffing levels. Though insufficient, the FY24 staffing level allowed the agency to more capably meet its mission to protect resources and ensure safe and inspiring visiting experiences. We are deeply concerned that FY26 funds appropriated for park operations that were accompanied with specific language to more capably staff parks are not being used to rehire the number of staff that the appropriation is intended to provide—a clear indication that such language is needed.

Additionally, we are concerned about the diversion of NPS funds, including Legacy Restoration Fund and fee dollars, towards projects in Washington, DC. Some of these projects have not gone through the requisite review process and disturb the historic integrity of the Park Service landscape that defines our nation’s capital. Therefore, we urge the committee to provide language stating no funds shall be used to build inappropriate structures in Washington DC on national park lands.

In summary, we encourage you to oppose this bill. As the FY27 appropriations process moves forward, we encourage a conferenced bill that rejects cuts to agencies that protect park resources and landscapes, rejects harmful policy riders that undermine park resources and health, and includes provisions demonstrating needed oversight. This should include language mandating more adequate park service staffing levels and preventing inappropriate new construction projects in Washington, DC.