Submitted to: Bureau of Land Management, Farmington Field Office
NEPA number: DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2026-0002-EA
Project: Evaluation of Potential Revocation of Chaco Withdrawal
Submitted by: Elizabeth Perry, President and CEO, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center
Date: July 27th, 2026
# REQUESTED DECISION
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center respectfully requests that the Secretary select the No Action Alternative and retain Public Land Order No. 7923. Neither full nor partial revocation would adequately protect the Greater Chaco cultural landscape.
At minimum, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should not proceed with revocation until they have fulfilled the agreement governing the Chaco Heritage Tribal Association study; incorporated that tribally led study on terms consistent with the agreement; completed meaningful government-to-government consultation; evaluated newly available cultural landscape information; corrected the analytical deficiencies identified below; and provided adequate time for Tribal Nations and the public to review and comment on a revised analysis.
# CROW CANYON’S INTEREST
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center is a nonprofit organization whose mission includes empowering present and future generations by making the human past accessible and relevant through archaeological research, experiential education, American Indian knowledge, and meaningful partnership and collaboration with Indigenous people. For more than four decades, Crow Canyon has conducted and supported archaeological research and public education in the North American Southwest. Our work has demonstrated that archaeological places derive meaning not only from individual structures or artifacts, but also from relationships among communities, roads, viewsheds, natural features, traditional use areas, and living descendant communities.
Crow Canyon submits these comments in its own institutional capacity. We recognize that Tribal Nations are sovereign governments and that their positions are not uniform. The All Pueblo Council of Governors and the five sovereign Tribal Nations comprising the Chaco Heritage Tribal Association have expressed strong opposition to revocation. The Navajo Nation government and some Navajo allottees have expressed a different position grounded in consultation, local authority, mineral interests, and economic concerns. BLM must address these distinct positions directly and respectfully; Crow Canyon does not presume to speak for any Tribal Nation.
## The No Action Alternative best protects an irreplaceable cultural landscape
PLO No. 7923 was established to protect public lands and the greater connected landscape surrounding Chaco Culture National Historical Park from impacts associated with oil and gas development and mineral exploration and mining. The Draft EA itself recognizes that the Greater Chaco Landscape is of profound cultural and spiritual importance; that Pueblo Nations understand it as an integrated cultural system rather than a collection of isolated sites; and that additional development could harm known and yet-to-be-documented archaeological sites, properties of traditional religious and cultural significance, Indian sacred sites, and other cultural places; disrupt natural sights, sounds, plants, and animals; and interfere with traditional ceremonial and religious practices.
These acknowledgments support continuation of the withdrawal in its current form. The landscape cannot be adequately protected by preserving only lands within the National Historical Park boundary, establishing a narrow buffer around the park, or avoiding individual recorded archaeological sites already determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Chaco’s significance arises from a wider network of ancient communities, roads, routes, sacred places, astronomical relationships, viewsheds, soundscapes, and continuing cultural connections. Fragmentation and industrialization can diminish those relationships even when a well pad, road, pipeline, or mining activity does not physically intersect a recorded site.
Chaco Culture National Historical Park is internationally recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site. UNESCO’s description emphasizes Chaco’s role as a regional center for ceremony, trade, and political activity, and UNESCO has repeatedly recognized that industrial activities outside World Heritage boundaries can threaten the values for which properties are inscribed. The United States should exercise corresponding care when managing federal lands immediately surrounding this globally significant place.
# THE CULTURAL RESOURCE BASELINE IS INCOMPLETE
The Draft EA cannot reliably conclude that revocation would have little or no cultural effect when the cultural resource baseline remains incomplete. BLM relies on the New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System and internal agency data to identify known historic properties, properties of traditional religious and cultural significance, sacred sites, and traditional use areas. Those sources are important, but they do not establish that undocumented cultural places are absent.
The EA acknowledges at least 145 Traditional Cultural Properties within the ten-mile area and recognizes that its own data may not capture the full cultural landscape. Many culturally significant places may be intentionally confidential, recognized through oral tradition, or identifiable only through knowledge held by affiliated communities. A records search therefore cannot substitute for meaningful consultation and a cultural landscape study led by culturally affiliated Tribal Nations.
Most importantly, DOI funded the Chaco Heritage Tribal Association to conduct a tribally led cultural resources investigation, which was completed in 2025. The EA does not incorporate it. The Chaco Heritage Tribal Association has publicly stated that DOI has not yet satisfied the conditions of the governing data-sharing agreement, including required senior-level engagement. BLM should cure that deficiency and consider the study on agreed terms before deciding whether to remove the protection whose adequacy the study directly bears upon.
# BLM’s FINDING OF “NO ADVERSE EFFECT” IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS OWN ANALYSIS
The EA concludes that revocation, in whole or in part, would result in No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties. That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the EA’s other findings:
– Revocation itself is an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
– Reopening lands under the mining laws would allow members of the public to locate and enter mining claims without an initial case-specific authorization by BLM.
– Reasonably foreseeable development could cause loss of or damage to cultural resources and contextual information.
– Additional development could affect both known and unknown cultural sites and could disrupt ceremonial practices, natural sights, and natural sounds.
– Nine known Chacoan outliers on BLM-managed lands fall within the area affected by full revocation, and five fall within the area affected by partial revocation.
BLM primarily answers these risks by promising later inventories, consultation, avoidance, minimization, or mitigation at the leasing or project stage. Later review may reduce some site-specific harm, but it does not demonstrate that revocation now has no adverse effect. Once lands are reopened, legal rights, expectations, and development pressures may arise; BLM’s discretion may differ according to the mineral regime and stage of authorization. The agency should evaluate these consequences before removing the withdrawal rather than defer the core analysis until development is proposed.
# THE PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES DO NOT ENSURE LANDSCAPE-LEVEL PROTECTION
For notice-level mineral exploration or mining, BLM proposes to complete any necessary cultural resource inventory and recordation within the 15-day review period described in 43 C.F.R. § 3809.311(a). The EA does not demonstrate that this period is sufficient to identify historic properties, obtain and evaluate information from affiliated Tribal Nations, address sensitive or confidential information, analyze indirect and cumulative effects, and protect landscape relationships.
The EA also relies on existing laws and future mitigation without specifying enforceable, landscape-level measures sufficient to preserve cultural integrity. Avoiding the footprint of a recorded feature does not necessarily protect its setting, associated routes, viewshed, soundscape, dark-sky context, or relationship to other places. Nor can documentation compensate for destruction of an irreplaceable cultural place. BLM should not treat the availability of later mitigation as equivalent to the preventive protection supplied by the withdrawal.
# THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THAT PARTIAL REVOCATION IS NOT A PROTECTIVE COMPROMISE
BLM projects 14 additional oil and gas wells on new leases under both Alternative B, full revocation, and Alternative C, partial revocation. The agency predicts no new wells within the inner five-mile area. On BLM’s own assumptions, therefore, the five-mile alternative would permit all additional oil and gas development that BLM considers reasonably foreseeable.
Alternative C would also reopen the outer area containing 109 of the 129 identified mining claims. It would leave five known Chacoan outliers within the area potentially affected by revocation. Because it would permit the same projected oil and gas development and most identified mining claims, Alternative C does not meaningfully avoid the principal risks identified in the EA.
The EA briefly dismisses smaller-area alternatives on the ground that the Secretary may select any subset within the analyzed range. That is not a substitute for analyzing a reasonable alternative designed around cultural resource sensitivity, completed Tribal studies, landscape connectivity, or enforceable “no surface occupancy” protections. If BLM does not select No Action, it should develop and circulate a revised analysis of alternatives responsive to those considerations.
# THE EA MINIMIZES IRREVERIBLE CULTURAL RISK BY EMPHASIZING ACREAGE AND REGIONAL TOTALS
BLM repeatedly characterizes projected development as modest: 14 additional wells, approximately 58 acres of oil and gas disturbance, and 2,723 acres of total quantifiable disturbance under full revocation. But acreage is not an adequate proxy for cultural consequence. A relatively small footprint can interrupt the continuity of a road, disturb a shrine or offering place, alter a culturally important view, introduce persistent light or noise, or damage the setting and integrity of related properties.
The comparison of 14 projected wells with 37,300 wells on existing leases elsewhere in the broader decision area further obscures localized effects. The appropriate question is not whether 14 is a large number compared with regional development. It is whether allowing new industrial development within this particular cultural landscape is justified and whether its site-specific and cumulative effects can be prevented.
The EA estimates average annual regional effects of approximately 14 jobs, $1.13 million in labor income, and $727,764 in minimum federal mineral royalties over 20 years. Those estimates should be weighed against the permanence of cultural loss, the public’s stewardship interests, World Heritage values, continuing ceremonial use, research and educational value, the federal government’s relationship with culturally affiliated Tribal Nations, and the fact that cultural resources cannot be recreated after destruction. BLM’s quality-of-life analysis recognizes some of these nonmarket values but does not place them on an equal analytical footing with modeled mineral development benefits.
# CUMULATIVE, INDIRECT, AND EXPERIENTIAL EFFECTS REQUIRE FULLER ANALYSIS
The EA acknowledges an already industrialized regional landscape, including hundreds of existing wellbores within the withdrawal area across jurisdictions. Existing degradation is not a reason to discount additional harm. It increases the importance of protecting what remains and assessing whether incremental development would further fragment a cultural system that has already sustained substantial disturbance.
Similarly, the conclusion that park visitors would experience little or no effect because projected wells would be more than seven miles from the park focuses too narrowly on views from concentrated recreation sites. The relevant landscape includes Chacoan outliers and cultural relationships outside the park. Effects may include new roads and traffic, noise, artificial light, flaring, dust, emissions, visual intrusion, damage to research contexts, and interference with traditional cultural practices. The EA should analyze those effects from culturally relevant locations and routes, not solely from primary visitor areas inside the park.
# NEWLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION SHOULD BE EVALUATED BEFORE A DECISION
### Lidar data availability and potential implications for cultural resource evaluation
The following technical analysis was prepared by Katie Williams, Ph.D., Geospatial Archaeologist, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.
Until recently, much of the landscape surrounding Chaco Culture National Historical Park (CCNHP) lacked publicly available, high-resolution lidar coverage. Before April 2026, only approximately 45% of the ten-mile withdrawal zone was covered by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Quality Level 2 (QL2) lidar, most of which was acquired between 2016 and 2018. In 2024, USGS contracted with vendors for gap-filling flights in Colorado and New Mexico (USGS\CO\CONMGaps\1\D24\Summary\Report\02\05\2026\211224 and USGS\CO\CONMGaps\4\D24\Summary\Report\03\19\2026\205435). The resulting CONM\Gaps work units have been preliminarily validated as Quality Level 1 (QL1) lidar datasets. These datasets are only partially published through The National Map; point clouds and vendor-provided digital elevation models became available beginning April 9, 2026, for Area 1 and April 20, 2026, for Area 4. Figure 1 shows the 3DEP coverage areas relative to the approximate five- and ten-mile protection zones around Chaco Canyon.
Refer to Figure 1 for USGS 3DEP lidar quality-level coverage relative to the approximate five- and ten-mile protection zones around Chaco Canyon and approximate BLM parcels.
Analysis of currently available lidar coverage indicates that the newly released QL1 data dramatically increase coverage across lands potentially affected by withdrawal decisions. Approximately 85,364 acres of BLM land lie within the proposed five-mile withdrawal area, roughly 82% of which is now covered by QL1 lidar; only 19% was covered by older QL2 data. An additional approximately 220,940 acres of BLM land lie between the five- and ten-mile buffers, of which approximately 52% is covered by QL1 lidar and 49% by QL2 lidar. CCNHP itself now has nearly complete lidar coverage, approximately 99% of which is QL1. Table 1 summarizes coverage within the approximate withdrawal zones. Because official GIS boundary files for the proposed withdrawal areas were not readily available, acreage estimates are based on publicly available mapping products and hand-digitized boundary approximations.
Refer to Table 1 for Lidar coverage within approximate withdrawal zones.
The importance of these newly available data extends beyond coverage statistics. High-resolution lidar has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to identify archaeological and landscape features that may be difficult or impossible to recognize using conventional aerial imagery or ground-based survey alone. Such features can include low-relief architectural remains, roads, berms, agricultural features, water-management systems, and broader cultural landscape patterns. At the Goodman Point Unit of Hovenweep National Monument, for example, recent lidar analysis identified a previously unrecognized ancestral road feature despite eight years of prior professional survey and excavation within the unit. Similar applications have been demonstrated throughout the U.S. Southwest and suggest that the newly released CONM\Gaps datasets may contain information relevant to understanding cultural resources across the broader Chaco landscape.
Meaningful evaluation of these newly released datasets at a landscape scale is difficult to accomplish within the current 14-day comment period. Although the data are publicly available, they have not yet been processed into the standardized USGS one-meter digital elevation models commonly used by archaeologists, land managers, and consulting firms. Users instead must work directly with point clouds or original project-resolution elevation models, manage approximately 2,500 individual tiles, and develop specialized processing workflows before interpretation. The datasets also span multiple Universal Transverse Mercator zones and require additional technical effort that would not normally be necessary once standard USGS products are published. Consequently, although the CONM\Gaps acquisition substantially improves the information available for evaluating cultural landscapes around CCNHP, comprehensive independent analysis is not feasible within the present review period. Based on the 3DEP publication dates, it is also unlikely that even partial datasets could have been incorporated into public review before the close of the first comment period on the proposed revocation.
# THE REVIEW AND CONSULTATION PROCESS SHOUDL PROVIDE MEANINGFUL TIME AND PREPARATION
BLM allowed seven days for scoping and only 14 days for review of this 140-page Draft EA and its appendices. That compressed schedule is inadequate for a decision affecting more than 336,000 acres surrounding a World Heritage property, particularly when multiple sovereign Tribal Nations must review the analysis, consult their knowledge holders and governing bodies, protect confidential information, and formulate government-to-government responses.
Past engagement concerning the 2023 withdrawal cannot substitute for meaningful consultation on a new proposal to revoke it. The relevant action, governing policies, administrative context, evidence, and Tribal positions must be considered in the present decision. Consultation should influence the decision before it is made; it should not be deferred principally to future lease or project reviews after the protective order has been revoked.
##
# REQUESTED ACTIONS
For the reasons above, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center respectfully requests that BLM and the Secretary:
– Select the No Action Alternative and retain PLO No. 7923 for its 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights.
– Do not adopt Alternative B or Alternative C, both of which would expose significant portions of the Greater Chaco cultural landscape to new mineral leasing, location, and entry.
– Fulfill DOI’s commitments under the agreement governing the Chaco Heritage Tribal Association study and incorporate the study on terms agreed with the participating sovereign Tribal Nations.
– Complete meaningful government-to-government consultation and accurately represent the distinct positions of affected Tribal Nations, Tribal organizations, local chapters, allottees, and communities.
– Evaluate newly available lidar and other relevant cultural landscape information in collaboration with affiliated Tribal Nations and qualified professionals, while protecting confidential and sensitive information.
– Reconsider the No Adverse Effect finding and analyze revocation’s direct, indirect, cumulative, landscape-level, and reasonably foreseeable consequences before relying on future project-level review.
– If BLM materially revises the EA or obtains significant new information, circulate the revised analysis and provide a substantially longer public comment period.
– If potentially significant effects cannot be resolved through a revised EA, prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before making a revocation decision.
# CONCLUSION
The Greater Chaco landscape is not an expendable space between protected archaeological sites. It is a connected cultural landscape of enduring importance to descendant communities and to the public. The Draft EA recognizes many of these values but does not carry them through to its conclusions. It asks the public to accept irreversible cultural risk in exchange for limited and uncertain development benefits, while relying on incomplete information and future mitigation
.
The protective order is temporary, preventive, and subject to valid existing rights. Retaining it preserves options and allows cultural knowledge, consultation, research, and stewardship to continue. Revocation may create pressures and harms that cannot be undone. Crow Canyon therefore urges the Secretary to select the No Action Alternative and retain PLO No. 7923.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Perry, President and CEO
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center
23390 Road K
Cortez, Colorado 81321
# SELECTED SOURCES
Bureau of Land Management, Draft Environmental Assessment, July 2026
Public Land Order No. 7923, 88 Fed. Reg. 37,266 (June 7, 2023)
All Pueblo Council of Governors, July 15, 2026 statement
Chaco Heritage Tribal Association, July 16, 2026 statement
Navajo Nation Office of the President, May 13, 2026 statement
National Park Service, Chaco Culture cultural resources
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Chaco Culture
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Section 106 and programmatic agreements
U.S. Geological Survey 3D Elevation Program, CONM\Gaps Areas 1 and 4 project summary reports (2026)