On Tuesday, the National Park Service announced a proposal to sharply increase entry fees to 17 of America’s busiest and most iconic national parks. Starting next year, it would cost cars $70—instead of $25 or $30—to enter public treasures like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Shenandoah, and the Grand Canyon during peak season. President Donald Trump’s secretary of the interior, Ryan Zinke, said the money is needed to repair the parks’ roads, campgrounds, and bathrooms. “The infrastructure of our national parks is aging and in need of renovation and restoration,” Zinke said, adding that higher fees “will help ensure that [the parks] are protected and preserved in perpetuity and that visitors enjoy a world-class experience that mirrors the amazing destinations they are visiting.”

Though Slate was predictably contrarian in defending the move, most critics rightly worry that the fee hikes will price out lower-income Americans, who are already underrepresented among visitors to national parks. “One of the basic ideas from the very beginning was that parks would be accessible to all Americans regardless of income level,” Jim Northrup, until recently the superintendent of Shenandoah, told ThinkProgress. “Americans already own these parks and they shouldn’t have to empty their wallets to enjoy them,” said Senator John Tester, a Democrat from Montana. Maureen Finnerty, chair of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, said in a statement, “The enormity of the increases exceeds any increases in the history of the National Park Service. We were shocked when we read the Administration’s proposal.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has proposed steep budget cuts to the National Park Service, and the House’s appropriations bill cuts it slightly. (The Senate has not released its specifics.) But if the agency needs money so badly, why slash its budget?

While there’s bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill about the fee hikes—the Senate may hold a hearing on it—another proposal this week that affects national parks has gone largely unnoticed. A Department of the Interior report on Tuesday, a response to Trump’s executive order in March on “promoting energy independence and economic growth,” outlined its plan to ease the leasing of federal lands to fossil fuel companies for mining and drilling—namely by reducing environmental oversight and limiting public input. Some of this land is directly adjacent to America’s national parks. As Nicholas Lund, a senior manager at the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), told me, “What happens next to a park impacts a park.”

So Zinke is not only trying to make national parks more expensive to access; he’s also threatening to degrade the quality of some of those parks—and of the visitors’ experience, the cost of which has more than doubled. Imagine dropping $70 to enter a public land, only to reach an overlook and see a magnificent valley of ... rigs and pumps. You hear the cacophony of industrial equipment. You take a deep breath: the whiff of oil.

Generally speaking, the federal government is not allowed to lease national parkland for oil and gas development. But fossil fuel development doesn’t have to happen inside a national park for the national park to be affected. In 2002, an oil well in Tennessee exploded, sending thousands of barrels of crude flowing into tributaries of the Obed Wild and Scenic River, part of the national park system. The fire from the blowout “burned oil-soaked vegetation, trees and soils and caused underlying rock to fracture,” according to Interior. “Spilled oil continued to seep from the creek bank into Clear Creek for 5 years after the incident.”