President Trump’s proposed cuts to the National Park Service (NPS) are troubling some Republicans.
The Trump administration has proposed a 30 percent cut to the park service’s operations and staffing budgets.
In addition, the administration’s budget calls for transferring some park service sites to the states — a provision that is sparking particular ire from the GOP.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill the administration’s proposed cuts were “concerning.”
“We want to have some discussions on it and exactly how it’s going to affect the Park Service and exactly what units the states are going to take over management … we need more information,” added Simpson, who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of funding NPS.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who described himself as a “strong supporter” of national parks, said he wants “to make sure they’re adequately funded.”
The lawmaker, who faces reelection next year, hails from a state with two major national parks in Glacier and Yellowstone, as well as a number of other NPS sites.
He said the congressional appropriations process will “sort all this out.”
During a recent Senate hearing — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also expressed concerns about the administration’s “skinny budget” where some of the NPS cuts and the plan to move some parks to the states were floated.
“It’s hard to square it with the claims that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy,” said Murkowski, referencing the Interior Department.
The National Park Service is part of Interior. Murkowski chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds the agency.
During the same Senate hearing, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said he doesn’t want to get rid of park rangers or wildland firefighters.
At the same time, Burgum said he does think the NPS budget can be reduced by eliminating office workers, including those working in human relations and information technology.
“I want more people in the parks, whether they’re driving a snowplow in the wintertime or whether they’re working with [an] interpreter in the summertime or they’re doing trail work … I want more of that. I want less overhead,” he said.
A former NPS employee who spoke with The Hill, however, noted such cuts can have negative implications.
“Park support personnel in those back of the house functions deal with things like employees displaced from wildfires,” the former employee said. “When wildfires are happening right now and parks are being burned over, and you have to find other accommodations for those people to move. If you don’t have that HR staff, where is that support coming from?”
Burgum has also stressed that none of the nation’s “crown jewel” national parks would be transferred to states.
“The National Parks, with a capital N capital P — the 63 national parks, none of those are under consideration for transfer that would include all the national parks in Alaska,” he told Murkowski during the hearing.
He said the sites that are under consideration for transfer are mostly “historic sites, cultural sites that … have got low visitation … that might better fit into a state, historic society site or some other designation.”
The proposed cuts include a 19 percent reduction for park visitor services, a 39 percent reduction for facility operation and maintenance and a 51 percent cut for resource stewardship, which includes “the protection of unique natural and historical features of units of the National Park System.”
The former NPS employee who spoke with The Hill said that the cuts to these park operations, particularly the resource stewardship cut, could impact experiences at the park.
“That’s making sure that air and water are clean,” the person said. “That has a direct effect on the ability to swim in parks and make sure that water is clean in our rivers.”
The ex-employee noted it could also have impacts on fishing and whether fish are safe to eat as well as “planning for the future, for climate change and understanding those impacts and how we would manage through those.”
The proposed cuts come as the Trump administration seeks to cut federal spending across the board — seeking to make federal agencies leaner and more “efficient.”
But such cuts have come at a price.
At Yosemite National Park in California, a seasonal hiring delay has reportedly resulted in scientists, IT workers and rangers having to clean the bathrooms.
Other parks have reportedly had to close bathrooms and visitor centers.
The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that 13 percent of the agency’s staff is already gone because of buyouts, early retirement and deferred resignation programs pushed by the Trump administration.
Parks advocates say that these cuts have already caused issues and that even more cuts would exacerbate the problems.
“There won’t be as many Rangers, won’t be as many maintenance people … there will be some closures in picnic areas … it’s a widespread issue that’s going to affect every park I think in the country,” said Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America’s Parks.
“I don’t think it will be popular,” added Francis, whose 41-year career at the National Park Service included working as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
