Take Action: Defend Chaco Canyon

My name is {YOUR NAME}, and I live in {YOUR CITY/TOWN/STATE}. I am submitting this public comment today to strongly urge the Bureau of Land Management to select Alternative A – the No Action Alternative – in the Evaluation of Potential Revocation of Chaco Withdrawal Environmental Assessment, and to reject Alternatives B and C. Alternative A would retain the existing 20-year mineral leasing withdrawal (PLO 7923) around Chaco Culture National Historical Park through approximately 2043.

• Have you visited Chaco Culture NHP or the surrounding landscape? What did that experience mean to you?
• Do you live, work, or have family in the San Juan Basin or Four Corners region?
• Do you care about clean air, water scarcity, or public lands more broadly, and how does that connect to this place?
• Do you have a cultural, spiritual, or ancestral connection to this landscape?
• Why does this specific landscape deserve protection, in your own words?

I ask the BLM to address the {any/all of the following – select what feels meaningful to you} problems before any decision is made:

1. The comment period is inadequate. A 7-day scoping period and 14-day comment period is not sufficient time for the public to meaningfully engage with a decision of this magnitude — especially given that the scoping period alone drew over 100,000 comments in support of continued protection. I request the BLM extend the comment period and provide additional opportunities for public input.
2. The EA fails to evaluate the real consequences of reopening these lands. The analysis postpones evaluation of mining impacts — including uranium exploration and development — until future leasing or permitting decisions. But the decision to revoke the withdrawal is the decision that creates these risks, and it should be evaluated now, not deferred.
3. The EA’s conclusions on cultural harm are internally contradictory. The draft EA acknowledges that the greater Chaco landscape is one integrated cultural and spiritual system, where development threatens known and unknown archaeological sites, soundscapes, ceremonial practices, and landscape integrity — yet it concludes that revocation would have “little to no effect” on culture or ways of life. By the EA’s own definitions, effects on soundscapes and ceremonial practice are cultural effects. I ask the BLM to reconcile this contradiction.
4. The BLM’s own commissioned cultural study was not used. The Chaco Heritage Tribal Association (CHTA) cultural resources study, funded by the DOI and completed in 2025, was the intended data source for evaluating cultural impacts — yet the BLM has not obtained or incorporated this study into its “little to no effect” determination. A conclusion of minimal cultural harm cannot be credible without this data.
5. The BLM is relying on an outdated 2003 Resource Management Plan. Given the abandonment of the RMP amendment process in 2024 and the advancement of horizontal drilling technology since 2003, I ask the BLM to conduct a landscape-scale, cumulative impacts analysis using current information before any leasing decision is made.
6. Government-to-government consultation has been inadequate. Informational meetings with Pueblos and Tribes between 2025 and 2026 revealed incomplete analyses and unfulfilled commitments. I ask the BLM to complete meaningful, good-faith consultation as required under the National Historic Preservation Act before proceeding.

For these reasons, I urge the BLM to select Alternative A and retain the existing protections for the greater Chaco landscape.

Thank you for considering my comment.

[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR CITY/TOWN, STATE]
[Optional: YOUR RELEVANT AFFILIATION — e.g., Tribal member, local business owner, public lands user, scientist, etc.]