[ { "site_name": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge \u2014 Coastal Plain", "slug": "arctic-refuge", "location": "Northeastern Alaska", "designation_type": "National Wildlife Refuge (Coastal Plain oil and gas leasing program)", "governing_agency": "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refuge); Bureau of Land Management (leasing program)", "threat_category": "Oil and gas drilling \u2014 Coastal Plain lease sales", "status": "Active \u2014 first of four mandated lease sales completed", "coordinates": [ 69.5, -143.0 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "First of four mandatory Coastal Plain lease sales held June 2026; major oil companies declined to bid.", "sections": { "history": "The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge spans more than 19 million acres of wilderness in\nnortheastern Alaska, including some of the most undeveloped land in the United States, with no\nroads, marked trails, or campgrounds. In 1960, the Department of the Interior designated 9.8\nmillion acres of the area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range. A 1980 federal law (ANILCA)\nexpanded the refuge and prohibited oil and gas activity in its 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain\nunless explicitly authorized by Congress.[[harvard-environmental-energy]][[congressional-research]]\nThe Coastal Plain provides denning habitat for polar bears and calving grounds for the Porcupine\ncaribou herd, and holds significance for the Gwich'in people, who call it \"the sacred place\nwhere life begins.\"[[earthjustice-2]][[wildlife-federation-2]]\n", "current_threat": "The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act directed the Interior Secretary to hold at least two Coastal\nPlain lease sales within 10 years. A first sale was held in January 2021 under the first Trump\nadministration, yielding leases on 437,804 acres; most bids came from the Alaska Industrial\nDevelopment and Export Authority (AIDEA), a state-established\ncorporation.[[congressional-research]] Biden's Executive Order 13990 paused Coastal Plain\nactivity and Interior later canceled the seven remaining leases; a federal court struck down\nthat cancellation in March 2025.[[harvard-environmental-energy]] The One Big Beautiful Bill Act\n(P.L. 119-21), signed July 2025, mandated four additional lease sales through 2035, each\noffering at least 400,000 acres.[[land-management]] In October 2025, Interior reinstated the\nleasing program across the full 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain.[[earthjustice-4]] The first\nsale under this mandate was held June 5, 2026, offering 58 tracts covering approximately 688,829\nacres.[[land-management]][[federal-register]][[taxpayers-common-sense]] All major oil companies\ndeclined to bid; only AIDEA and a small Alaska company, Hex LLC \u2014 neither with Arctic drilling\nexperience \u2014 submitted bids, on five parcels total.[[wildlife-federation]][[earthjustice]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Land:** The Coastal Plain (the \"1002 Area\") is roughly 1.56 million acres of\nArctic tundra along Alaska's North Slope, underlain by permafrost, with a short growing season\nand extreme seasonal temperature range (average winter lows near -40\u00b0F, summer highs near\n50\u00b0F).[[wildlife-federation-4]]\n\n**Climate:** Winter temperatures in the Alaska/western Canada Arctic region have already risen\nas much as 7\u00b0F over the past 50 years per available research, with snow-covered area declining\nroughly 10% over the past 30 years \u2014 trends most pronounced in April and May, the exact window\nrelevant to caribou calving and polar bear den emergence.[[wildlife-federation-2]] A 25-year\nUSGS research review found no statistically significant change in vegetation, soil conditions,\nor permafrost thaw specifically within the 1002 Area over that period, alongside persistent\nscientific uncertainty about the longer-term effects of industrial development on the Coastal\nPlain's wildlife.[[geological-survey]] Separately, oil and gas development in the Arctic broadly\nis documented to compound climate change through associated greenhouse gas emissions, and Alaska\noverall is warming roughly four times faster than the global average, contributing to decreased\nsea ice, coastal erosion, and ocean acidification.[[earthjustice-3]]\n\n**Habitat & Endangered Species:** The Coastal Plain provides calving grounds for the Porcupine\ncaribou herd (nearly 200,000 animals, migrating roughly 1,500 miles annually \u2014 one of the\nlongest land migrations of any animal).[[earthjustice-2]] It also holds the most significant\nU.S. denning habitat for polar bears: up to 29 pregnant females den in the Coastal Plain in a\ngiven winter, digging shelters 7-10 feet into snow drifts, and the area is documented to contain\nnearly half of all identified mainland polar bear dens; as sea ice has thinned, increasing\nnumbers of polar bears den on land rather than ice, raising the relative importance of this\nspecific habitat.[[wildlife-federation-3]][[defenders-wildlife]] Muskoxen numbers in the 1002\nArea have already declined per USGS research, and the herd has shown variable use of the calving\narea over the same period.[[geological-survey]] The plain also supports over 200 migratory bird\nspecies and up to 300,000 snow geese each fall,[[wildlife-federation-4]] plus endangered bowhead whales\nmigrating offshore, which are documented as highly sensitive to industrial disturbance\nincluding potential oil spills.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** A Canadian Wildlife Service study found 19% higher caribou calf\nmortality in years when snow patterns forced the herd away from its preferred calving grounds \u2014\nillustrating how sensitive calving success is to disturbance or displacement, a relevant\nconsideration for permanent industrial infrastructure sited within that same calving range.\nScientists and Gwich'in leaders have specifically warned that combined climate stress and\nrenewed drilling pressure could threaten the long-term viability of the Porcupine caribou herd\nin a manner comparable to historical bison population collapse.\n", "impact_cultural": "The Coastal Plain holds documented significance for the Gwich'in people's way of life, who have\ndepended on the Porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years and specifically oppose Coastal\nPlain development; the National Wildlife Federation has stated drilling activity threatens\nGwich'in interests alongside wildlife habitat.\n", "impact_economic": "Prior Coastal Plain lease sales have drawn minimal industry interest: the 2021 sale generated\n$14.4 million in high bids across nine tracts (minimum bid $25/acre), and a 2025 sale drew no\nbids at all. The June 2026 sale set minimum bid at $25/acre, rent at $10/acre, and royalty at\n16.67% \u2014 with only 5 of 58 offered tracts drawing any bid, and no major oil company\nparticipating. The lack of major-company participation was cited by conservation and taxpayer\nwatchdog groups as evidence that Arctic Refuge drilling is not a commercially viable response\nto current energy costs, despite ongoing federal outlay to administer four mandated sales\nthrough 2035. A total federal cost of administering the mandated sale program was not\nidentified in current sourcing.\n", "impact_legal": "A lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and\nFriends of the Earth U.S. \u2014 originally filed in 2020 and amended in 2026 \u2014 challenges the\nInterior Department's October 2025 decision to maximize Coastal Plain leasing, and separately\nchallenges the legality of leases AIDEA obtained during the first Trump administration. The\nlawsuit remained active as of this page's last verification.\n", "impact_health": "Not yet documented \u2014 no dedicated human-health impact study specific to Coastal Plain leasing\nwas identified in current sourcing; documented impacts to date are ecological (wildlife) and\nsubsistence-lifestyle-related (Gwich'in) rather than direct physical-health findings.\n", "consultation_status": "Gwich'in leadership has been engaged in opposition advocacy for decades, but a formal,\nproject-specific tribal consultation record for the June 2026 lease sale was not identified in\ncurrent sourcing. The Refuge's cultural framing by the Gwich'in as \"the sacred place where life\nbegins\" is documented, but the government-to-government consultation process status specific to\nthis sale is not yet documented.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)", "role": "Leaseholder \u2014 state-established public corporation", "responsibility": "Held the high bid on 3 of 5 parcels sold in the June 2026 sale; also held 7 of 9 leases issued in the 2021 sale, covering the majority of leased Coastal Plain acreage to date", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 AIDEA's specific 2026 bid total not established in current sourcing", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone" }, { "name": "Hex LLC", "role": "Leaseholder \u2014 small Alaska-based company", "responsibility": "Held the high bid on 2 of 5 parcels sold in the June 2026 sale; has no prior Arctic drilling experience", "value": "Not yet documented", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone" }, { "name": "Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office", "role": "Administering agency", "responsibility": "Conducts the four mandated Coastal Plain lease sales through 2035 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act", "value": "", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-announces-2026-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-alaskas-coastal-plain" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "National Wildlife Federation", "position": "Opposes Coastal Plain drilling; noted major oil companies' non-participation in June 2026 sale", "date": "2026-06-05", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2026/6-5-2026-ANWR-Lease-Sale" }, { "name": "Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth U.S.", "position": "Litigating against the October 2025 Record of Decision maximizing Coastal Plain leasing", "date": "2026", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone" }, { "name": "Gwich'in Steering Committee / Gwich'in leadership", "position": "Opposes Coastal Plain drilling due to threat to the Porcupine caribou herd and Gwich'in subsistence way of life", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2010/Arctic-Refuge-Turns-Fifty" }, { "name": "Defenders of Wildlife", "position": "Opposes drilling, citing polar bear denning habitat risk", "date": "2025-01-16", "url": "https://defenders.org/blog/2025/01/protecting-arctic-refuge-again" }, { "name": "Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)", "position": "Bid on and holds leases in the Coastal Plain", "date": "2026-06-05", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1960", "event": "Interior designates 9.8 million acres as the Arctic National Wildlife Range." }, { "date": "1980", "event": "ANILCA expands the refuge and restricts Coastal Plain oil and gas activity absent congressional authorization." }, { "date": "2017-12", "event": "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act mandates at least two Coastal Plain lease sales within 10 years." }, { "date": "2021-01", "event": "First Coastal Plain lease sale held; 437,804 acres leased, mostly to AIDEA." }, { "date": "2021 (early)", "event": "Biden Executive Order 13990 pauses Coastal Plain leasing activity." }, { "date": "2025-03", "event": "Federal court strikes down cancellation of remaining leases." }, { "date": "2025-07", "event": "One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates four additional lease sales through 2035." }, { "date": "2025-10-23", "event": "Interior reinstates the Coastal Plain leasing program across the full 1.56 million acres." }, { "date": "2026-06-05", "event": "First sale under the new mandate held; only AIDEA and Hex LLC bid, on five parcels." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "land-management", "label": "BLM announces 2026 oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Coastal Plain", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2026-04-17", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-announces-2026-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-alaskas-coastal-plain", "supports": "Sale date, acreage mandate, legal authority cited" }, { "id": "federal-register", "label": "Notice of 2026 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Lease Sale", "publisher": "Federal Register", "date": "2026-04-20", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-07667/oil-and-gas-lease-sale-2026-coastal-plain", "supports": "Bid opening logistics and dates" }, { "id": "congressional-research", "label": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Status of Oil and Gas Program", "publisher": "Congressional Research Service (Congress.gov)", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12006", "supports": "Legislative and leasing history, 2021 sale results" }, { "id": "harvard-environmental-energy", "label": "Regulatory Tracker \u2014 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge \u2014 Oil and Gas Development", "publisher": "Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program", "date": "2026-01-13", "url": "https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-oil-and-gas-development/", "supports": "Full regulatory timeline, refuge size, habitat description" }, { "id": "geological-survey", "label": "Summary of wildlife-related research on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2002-17", "publisher": "U.S. Geological Survey", "date": "2018-01-23", "url": "https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20181003", "supports": "25-year permafrost/vegetation stability finding, muskox decline, caribou variability, scientific uncertainty framing" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "wildlife-federation", "label": "Lack of Interest in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lease Sale Confirms Inviable Solution to Current Energy Demands", "publisher": "National Wildlife Federation", "date": "2026-06-05", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2026/6-5-2026-ANWR-Lease-Sale", "supports": "Major companies' non-participation" }, { "id": "taxpayers-common-sense", "label": "Arctic Refuge Oil and Gas Lease Sale Recycles Previously Offered Acres", "publisher": "Taxpayers for Common Sense", "date": "2026-04-29", "url": "https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/arctic-refuge-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-recycles-previously-offered-acres/", "supports": "Tract count, minimum bid/rent/royalty figures" }, { "id": "earthjustice", "label": "Lease Sale Seeks to Transform Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a Fossil Fuel Industrial Zone", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2026-06-05", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone", "supports": "Bidder identities, habitat impact, litigation" }, { "id": "earthjustice-2", "label": "Trump Administration Offers Vast Tracts within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Big Oil Drilling", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2026-04-21", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administration-offers-vast-tracts-within-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-to-big-oil-drilling", "supports": "Species list, acreage figures, litigation details" }, { "id": "earthjustice-3", "label": "What Will We Lose if Oil and Gas Drilling Expands in Arctic?", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2026-04-01", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/article/what-will-we-lose-if-oil-and-gas-drilling-expands-in-arctic", "supports": "Bowhead whale sensitivity, Alaska warming rate, caribou/polar bear habitat overlap" }, { "id": "earthjustice-4", "label": "Trump Administration Opens the Entire Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Oil and Gas Leasing", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2025-10-24", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/trump-administration-opens-the-entire-coastal-plain-of-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-to-oil-and-gas-leasing", "supports": "Species diversity list, October 2025 reinstatement" }, { "id": "wildlife-federation-2", "label": "Fifty Years of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge", "publisher": "National Wildlife Federation", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2010/Arctic-Refuge-Turns-Fifty", "supports": "Winter temperature rise, snow cover decline, Gwich'in statement, caribou calf mortality study" }, { "id": "defenders-wildlife", "label": "Protecting the Arctic Refuge \u2014 Again!", "publisher": "Defenders of Wildlife", "date": "2025-01-16", "url": "https://defenders.org/blog/2025/01/protecting-arctic-refuge-again", "supports": "Polar bear vulnerability framing, seismic exploration risk" }, { "id": "wildlife-federation-3", "label": "Sacred Ground", "publisher": "National Wildlife Federation (National Wildlife magazine)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2020/August-September/Conservation/ANWR", "supports": "Polar bear den count (up to 29), den depth, share of mainland dens figure" }, { "id": "wildlife-federation-4", "label": "The Arctic", "publisher": "National Wildlife Federation", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Wild-Places/Arctic", "supports": "Migratory bird species count, snow geese population, temperature range, permafrost description" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/lease-sale-threatens-to-transform-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-into-a-fossil-fuel-industrial-zone", "comment_deadline": "No published federal comment deadline on record; three further mandated lease sales remain through 2035." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Bears Ears National Monument", "slug": "bears-ears", "location": "San Juan County, southeastern Utah", "designation_type": "National Monument (reduced boundary as of July 2026)", "governing_agency": "Bureau of Land Management / U.S. Forest Service", "threat_category": "Monument boundary rollback / mining and drilling", "status": "Boundary cut \u2014 reopening to mining claims in progress", "coordinates": [ 37.6167, -109.9167 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "Monument cut by over 90% in July 2026; excluded land reopens to mining after 60 days.", "sections": { "history": "The Bears Ears Cultural Landscape holds documented human presence going back roughly 12,000\nyears, including cliff dwellings, petroglyphs, ancient roads, and thousands of archaeological\nsites. In 2015, five sovereign tribal nations \u2014 the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe\nof the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Zuni Tribe \u2014 formed the Bears\nEars Inter-Tribal Coalition, the first time multiple tribes had jointly petitioned for a\nnational monument.[[bears-ears-inter]][[trust-historic-preservation-2]] President Obama\ndesignated Bears Ears National Monument on December 28, 2016, at 1.36 million acres, with a\nmanagement structure including the Bears Ears Commission, a body of tribal representatives\nworking alongside the BLM and Forest Service.[[bears-ears-inter]][[federal-register]]\n", "current_threat": "In December 2017, the first Trump administration cut Bears Ears by roughly 85%. President\nBiden fully restored the monument's original boundaries in October 2021, a restoration federal\ncourts upheld.[[natural-resources-defense]] On July 13, 2026, President Trump signed a new\nproclamation cutting Bears Ears from approximately 1.36 million acres to 121,096 acres \u2014 a\nreduction of more than 90%, deeper than the 2017 cut \u2014 and purported to terminate the Bears Ears\nCommission.[[federal-register]][[trust-historic-preservation]] The proclamation directs that the\nroughly 1.24 million acres removed from the monument may reopen to mineral leasing, mining\nclaims, and other public land dispositions 60 days after signing (on or around September 11,\n2026).[[native-rights-fund]][[white-house]] The stated rationale cited critical minerals\nincluding silver, copper, molybdenum, lead, uranium, vanadium, and zinc.[[federal-register]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology:** The excluded land sits atop the San Juan Basin/White Canyon uranium district and\nholds documented uranium and vanadium deposits; over 300 uranium mining leases and more than\n350 uranium claims have historically been tied to the broader monument footprint, more than a\nthird owned by a single company subsidiary (see Named Companies section).\n\n**Water & Contamination:** The nearest operating uranium processing facility, the White Mesa\nMill (about 1 mile from the monument boundary and 2-3 miles from the White Mesa Ute community),\nhas documented regulatory history relevant to any expanded regional uranium activity: the EPA\nbarred it in 2025 from accepting radioactive Superfund waste after finding an \"egregious\"\nviolation;[[grand-canyon-trust-2]] the facility's oldest waste ponds use a single-liner design\n(versus the double-liner-with-leak-detection standard required for new facilities), and White\nMesa community members and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe have raised longstanding concern that\ngroundwater beneath the mill flows toward their drinking water source. The mill holds over 700\nmillion pounds of accumulated waste as of recent reporting.[[grand-canyon-trust]][[moab-sun-news]]\nState regulators (Utah DEQ) state the mill complies with NRC exposure limits and holds a state\ngroundwater permit.\n\n**Air Quality:** The mill is documented to emit radon, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide;\nradon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers.[[grand-canyon-trust]] Increased\nregional uranium hauling (trucking ore from mines including one near the Grand Canyon, through\nNavajo Nation land) is tied to this facility's operations.[[npr]]\n\n**Habitat & Endangered Species:** Bears Ears is home to at least 18 species listed under the\nEndangered Species Act.[[wilderness-society]]\n\n**Cultural Sites:** The excluded lands include thousands of archaeological and cultural sites \u2014\ncliff dwellings, petroglyphs, ancient roads, and burial sites \u2014 that lose federal monument\nprotection once the boundary reduction takes effect, increasing vulnerability to looting and\nvandalism, a documented, longstanding problem at this site prior to 2016 designation.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** Uranium mining and milling waste in this region has multi-decade to\nmulti-century decay timescales; tribal leaders and residents have specifically framed\ngroundwater contamination risk as a multigenerational concern (\"poison drinking water for\nfuture generations\").\n", "impact_cultural": "See cultural-sites detail folded into the environmental section above; a dedicated\narchaeological site count specific to the 1.24-million-acre excluded area (distinct from the\nmonument-wide totals already cited) is not yet documented.\n", "impact_economic": "Congressional Democrats (Reps. Jared Huffman and Maxine Dexter) opened an investigation in\nAugust 2026 into whether Energy Fuels executives engaged in insider trading: CEO Ross Bhappu\npurchased 74,000 shares of company stock on July 7, 2026, and board chair Bruce Hansen\npurchased 4,000 shares the following day \u2014 six days before Trump signed the July 13 proclamation\nreducing the monument.[[e-e-news]] Bhappu's purchase is recorded in a Form 4 filed with the Securities and\nExchange Commission on July 7, 2026, which reports him as President and CEO of Energy Fuels Inc.\n(NYSE American: UUUU) and records 74,000 common shares acquired under transaction code P \u2014 an\nopen-market purchase \u2014 at an average price of $13.08 per share, or approximately $968,000, with\n256,583 shares held directly following the transaction. The filing's remarks state the price\n\"represents an average purchase price over multiple same-day\npurchases.\"[[securities-exchange-commission]] Hansen's purchase is\nrecorded in a separate Form 4 covering a July 8, 2026 transaction: 4,000 common shares, also\nunder code P, at $12.695 per share, or approximately $50,780, with 313,844 shares held directly\nafterwards. That form records his relationship to the issuer as Director; Form 4 carries no\nboard-chair designation, so the chairmanship is not established by the filing\nitself.[[securities-exchange-commission-2]] Energy Fuels has stated it holds no properties, mining claims, or\neconomic interests within the monument and has not advocated for changes to it under the\ncurrent administration; this contradicts the company's documented 2017 lobbying record cited\nin the Named Companies section. Separately, Energy Fuels has received at least $1.75 million in\nU.S. Department of Energy taxpayer subsidies for a related rare-earths processing line at its\nadjacent White Mesa Mill, and has committed to paying the Navajo Nation $0.50 per pound of\nrecovered uranium transported across Navajo land plus a $1.2 million community/environmental\ntrust contribution.[[sec-edgar-filing]][[npr]] A broader fiscal analysis of the reduction's impact to the federal\ngovernment (lost recreation revenue, opportunity cost of foregone monument-status protections)\nis not yet documented.\n", "impact_legal": "Litigation over the 2017 cuts (NRDC et al. v. Trump et al.) remains stayed pending resolution\nof Garfield County et al. v. Biden et al. in the Tenth Circuit, which returned the case to\ndistrict court in June 2026 for further review. The state of Utah separately challenged the\n2021 Biden restoration; a federal court upheld the\nrestoration.[[natural-resources-defense]][[wilderness-society]][[native-rights-fund]] New legal challenges to the\nJuly 2026 proclamation were anticipated but not yet filed as of this page's last verification.\n", "impact_health": "White Mesa community members and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe have raised documented health\nconcerns tied to the adjacent mill, including a specific account of a young family member born\nwith breathing complications requiring emergency hospitalization, attributed by residents to\nair quality near the mill (see also Air Quality detail in the environmental section). Radon \u2014\nthe leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers \u2014 is a documented mill emission. A dedicated\nepidemiological study specific to the reduced-monument mining reopening (as distinct from the\nexisting mill's operations) was not identified in current sourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "The July 13, 2026 proclamation itself terminated the Bears Ears Commission, the formal tribal\nconsultation body that had been in place since the 2016 designation to guide co-management with\nthe five sovereign tribal nations. This is a documented, direct rollback of an existing\nconsultation structure, not merely an absence of consultation \u2014 the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal\nCoalition's July 14, 2026 response explicitly protests both the boundary reduction and the\nCommission's termination.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc., Canada)", "role": "Adjacent mine/mill operator; documented lobbying party in both the 2017 and 2026 boundary reductions", "responsibility": "Owns and operates the White Mesa uranium/vanadium/rare-earths processing mill (~1 mile from the monument boundary, the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S.) and the Daneros Mine (~15 miles from the boundary); held or was tied to over 350 uranium claims in or near the original monument footprint as of the 2016 designation; currently under congressional investigation for possible insider trading tied to the July 2026 boundary reduction", "value": "Market activity under investigation, per SEC Form 4 filings: CEO purchase of 74,000 common shares on 7/7/26 at an average $13.08 (approximately $968,000) and director purchase of 4,000 shares on 7/8/26 at $12.695 (approximately $50,780), both under transaction code P \u2014 five and six days before the proclamation", "url": "https://www.eenews.net/articles/dems-probe-uranium-company-for-insider-trading-tied-to-bears-ears/" }, { "name": "Tigris Uranium Corp. (subsidiary of enCore Energy Corporation)", "role": "Claim holder", "responsibility": "Holds over 100 uranium mining claims within the original monument boundaries, acquired in 2015", "value": "Not yet documented", "url": "https://rollcall.com/2019/03/04/seeking-to-shrink-bears-ears-uranium-firm-met-with-interior-before-review/" }, { "name": "Bureau of Land Management / U.S. Forest Service", "role": "Administering agencies", "responsibility": "Manage the reduced monument and the reopened lands; process new mining claims after September 11, 2026", "value": "", "url": "https://www.bearsearscoalition.org/bears-ears-monument-reduction-2026/" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "National Trust for Historic Preservation", "position": "Opposes the July 2026 revocation; has listed Bears Ears as endangered since 2016", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://savingplaces.org/press-center/media-resources/statement-in-response-to-a-july-13-presidential-action-bears-ears" }, { "name": "Native American Rights Fund, representing Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe", "position": "Continuing to fight to defend Bears Ears' protected status", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://narf.org/cases/bears-ears/" }, { "name": "Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition", "position": "Opposes reduction and termination of the Bears Ears Commission", "date": "2026-07-14", "url": "https://www.bearsearscoalition.org/bears-ears-monument-reduction-2026/" }, { "name": "National Cattlemen's Beef Association / Public Lands Council", "position": "Supports the reduction, citing impacts of monument designation on grazing and communities[[more-than-just]]", "date": "2026-07-14", "url": "https://morethanjustparks.com/monument-watch" }, { "name": "Rep. Jared Huffman and Rep. Maxine Dexter (House Natural Resources Committee)", "position": "Investigating possible insider trading by Energy Fuels executives", "date": "2026-08", "url": "https://www.eenews.net/articles/dems-probe-uranium-company-for-insider-trading-tied-to-bears-ears/" }, { "name": "Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, former Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chair)", "position": "Raised health concerns for White Mesa community members near the mill", "date": "2026", "url": "https://moabsunnews.com/2022/03/25/the-half-life-of-white-mesa-mill/" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "2016-12-28", "event": "President Obama designates Bears Ears National Monument at 1.36 million acres." }, { "date": "2017-12", "event": "First Trump administration cuts the monument by roughly 85%." }, { "date": "2021-10", "event": "President Biden fully restores the monument's original boundaries." }, { "date": "2025", "event": "EPA bars White Mesa Mill from accepting Superfund radioactive waste after an 'egregious' violation." }, { "date": "2026-06", "event": "Tenth Circuit returns related litigation to district court for further review." }, { "date": "2026-07-07", "event": "Energy Fuels CEO Ross Bhappu purchases 74,000 shares of company stock." }, { "date": "2026-07-08", "event": "Energy Fuels board chair Bruce Hansen purchases 4,000 shares." }, { "date": "2026-07-13", "event": "Trump signs proclamation cutting the monument to 121,096 acres and purporting to terminate the Bears Ears Commission." }, { "date": "2026-08", "event": "House Democrats open insider-trading investigation into Energy Fuels executives' stock purchases." }, { "date": "2026-09-11", "event": "Excluded lands scheduled to reopen to new mining claims and mineral leasing, per the proclamation's 60-day provision." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "federal-register", "label": "Proclamation 11043 \u2014 Modifying the Bears Ears National Monument (signed July 13 2026)", "publisher": "Federal Register", "date": "2026-07-17", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/17/2026-14548/modifying-the-bears-ears-national-monument", "supports": "Reduction from approximately 1.36 million acres to approximately 121,096 acres in two units \u2014 Shash J\u00e1a (approximately 106,816 acres) and Indian Creek (approximately 14,279 acres); the stated rationale that the Proclamation 10285 reservation is not \"the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected\"; the stated domestic-supply rationale; and the naming of \"critical minerals such as silver, copper, molybdenum, lead, uranium, vanadium, and zinc\"" }, { "id": "white-house", "label": "Modifying the Bears Ears National Monument (presidential action)", "publisher": "The White House", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/07/modifying-the-bears-ears-national-monument/", "supports": "Proclamation text as issued" }, { "id": "trust-historic-preservation", "label": "Statement in Response to July 13 Presidential Action Modifying the Bears Ears National Monument", "publisher": "National Trust for Historic Preservation", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://savingplaces.org/press-center/media-resources/statement-in-response-to-a-july-13-presidential-action-bears-ears", "supports": "Proclamation details, acreage figures, Commission termination" }, { "id": "natural-resources-defense", "label": "NRDC et al. v. Trump et al. (Bears Ears National Monument) case tracker", "publisher": "Natural Resources Defense Council", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.nrdc.org/court-battles/nrdc-et-v-trump-bears-ears", "supports": "Litigation status" }, { "id": "native-rights-fund", "label": "NARF Stands Strong with Tribes for Bears Ears National Monument", "publisher": "Native American Rights Fund", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://narf.org/cases/bears-ears/", "supports": "60-day reopening provision, tribal legal representation" }, { "id": "securities-exchange-commission", "label": "SEC Form 4 \u2014 Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership, Ross R. Bhappu (Energy Fuels Inc., ticker UUUU), filed July 7 2026", "publisher": "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR)", "date": "2026-07-07", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1496748/000091228226000188/xslF345X05/form4.xml", "supports": "Bhappu's relationship to the issuer as officer, President and CEO; the July 7 2026 acquisition of 74,000 common shares under transaction code P (open-market purchase) at an average price of $13.08 per share; 256,583 shares held directly following the transaction; and the filing's remark that the price represents an average over multiple same-day purchases. The copy reviewed shows no mark in the Rule 10b5-1(c) trading-plan box, which should be confirmed against the original" }, { "id": "securities-exchange-commission-2", "label": "SEC Form 4 \u2014 Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership, Bruce D. Hansen (Energy Fuels Inc., ticker UUUU), transaction July 8 2026, signed July 9 2026", "publisher": "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR)", "date": "2026-07-09", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1064614/000138584926000023/xslF345X06/primary_doc.xml", "supports": "Hansen's relationship to the issuer recorded as Director; the July 8 2026 acquisition of 4,000 common shares under transaction code P (open-market purchase) at $12.695 per share; and 313,844 shares held directly following the transaction. The form records Director status only \u2014 it carries no board-chair designation, as Form 4 has no such checkbox" }, { "id": "e-e-news", "label": "Dems probe uranium company for insider trading tied to Bears Ears", "publisher": "E&E News by POLITICO", "date": "2026-08", "url": "https://www.eenews.net/articles/dems-probe-uranium-company-for-insider-trading-tied-to-bears-ears/", "supports": "Insider-trading investigation details, stock purchase dates and amounts" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "trust-historic-preservation-2", "label": "Bears Ears National Monument, Utah", "publisher": "National Trust for Historic Preservation", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://savingplaces.org/places/ancestral-places-of-southeast-utah", "supports": "12,000-year history, 2026 acreage figures" }, { "id": "more-than-just", "label": "Bears Ears & Grand Staircase Monument Watch", "publisher": "More Than Just Parks", "date": "2026", "url": "https://morethanjustparks.com/monument-watch", "supports": "National Cattlemen's Beef Association / Public Lands Council stated position (quote only; acreage and timeline now cited to Proclamation 11043 above)" }, { "id": "bears-ears-inter", "label": "Tribal Nations Respond to Bears Ears Monument Reduction", "publisher": "Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition", "date": "2026-07-14", "url": "https://www.bearsearscoalition.org/bears-ears-monument-reduction-2026/", "supports": "Commission structure, reopening provision" }, { "id": "wilderness-society", "label": "National Monuments: Bears Ears", "publisher": "The Wilderness Society", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.wilderness.org/wild-places/utah/national-monuments-bears-ears", "supports": "Endangered species count, litigation history" }, { "id": "grand-canyon-trust", "label": "White Mesa Uranium Mill", "publisher": "Grand Canyon Trust", "date": "2025-02-04", "url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/white-mesa-uranium-mill/", "supports": "Waste pond liner design, air pollutant emissions, groundwater flow direction, waste volume" }, { "id": "grand-canyon-trust-2", "label": "EPA Halts Waste Shipment to Uranium Mill Near Bears Ears", "publisher": "Grand Canyon Trust", "date": "2025-01-02", "url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/epa-halts-waste-shipment-uranium-mill-near-bears-ears/", "supports": "2025 EPA Superfund-waste violation finding" }, { "id": "moab-sun-news", "label": "The half-life of White Mesa Mill", "publisher": "Moab Sun News", "date": "2022-05-01", "url": "https://moabsunnews.com/2022/03/25/the-half-life-of-white-mesa-mill/", "supports": "Mill distance from monument and White Mesa community, resident health concerns" }, { "id": "npr", "label": "Nuclear power push ramps up uranium mill \u2014 and tribal health concerns", "publisher": "NPR", "date": "2026-08-12", "url": "https://www.npr.org/2026/08/12/nx-s1-5927298/nuclear-power-uranium-health-concerns", "supports": "Current uranium boom context, ore trucking routes through Navajo Nation, tribal opposition" }, { "id": "sec-edgar-filing", "label": "ENERGY FUELS INC - Form DEF 14A - FY2026", "publisher": "SEC EDGAR filing", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000106299326002046/formdef14a.htm", "supports": "DOE subsidy figure, Navajo trust contribution figures" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.bearsearscoalition.org/", "comment_deadline": "No published federal comment deadline on record as of last verification; lands reopen to claims September 11, 2026." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Big Bend National Park", "slug": "big-bend", "location": "West Texas, along the Rio Grande", "designation_type": "National Park (adjacent: Big Bend Ranch State Park, Black Gap Wildlife Management Area)", "governing_agency": "National Park Service (park); Texas Parks and Wildlife (adjacent state park)", "threat_category": "Border wall / vehicle barrier construction", "status": "Contracted \u2014 construction underway in phases", "coordinates": [ 29.1275, -103.2425 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "111+ miles of border barrier contracted through Big Bend under waived environmental law.", "sections": { "history": "People have documented presence in the Big Bend region going back roughly 7,500 years.\nSpanish expeditions passed through the area beginning around 1535, and a line of presidios\n(forts) was built along the Rio Grande in the late 1700s to control the northern frontier\nof New Spain. The Comanche and, before them, the Chisos and Apache used the region as part\nof a travel corridor later known as the Comanche Trail. Big Bend became part of the Texas\nranching frontier beginning around the 1870s.\n\nIn the 1930s, Texas passed legislation to acquire land for what was originally established as\nTexas Canyons State Park. Congress authorized a national park in 1935. The State of Texas\ndeeded the acquired land to the federal government in September 1943, and on June 12, 1944 \u2014\nsix days after the D-Day landings \u2014 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the bill officially\nestablishing Big Bend National Park. The park opened to visitors on July 1, 1944, and was\ndescribed at the time as \"Texas' Gift to the Nation.\"[[park-big-bend]][[park-2]] In 1944,\nRoosevelt and Mexican President Manuel \u00c1vila Camacho also proposed a binational protected\ncomplex spanning the border; that vision was not fully realized.[[park]]\n", "current_threat": "Beginning in late 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem published a series of notices in the Federal\nRegister authorizing construction of border barriers across Texas, including waivers of federal\nenvironmental and cultural-resource review laws.[[big-bend-sentinel-2]][[texas-tribune]] In June\n2026, DHS waived roughly 28 federal laws \u2014 including the National Park Service Organic Act, the\nEndangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Wild and Scenic\nRivers Act, and several Native American and historic-preservation statutes \u2014 to authorize\nconstruction of barriers, roads, and lighting through Big Bend National Park itself; this was\nthe first time the federal government had waived such a broad set of environmental protections\nfor construction inside a national\npark.[[homeland-security-secretary]][[center-biological-diversity-2]] CBP's plan area is broken\ninto contracted segments covering a 175-mile stretch across Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio\ncounties, with contracts awarded to Barnard Construction and Fisher Sand and\nGravel.[[texas-public-radio]] A separate $1.7 billion contract awarded in May 2026 to Southwest\nValley Constructors covers roughly 17 miles of \"vehicle barrier system\" plus about 205 miles of\n\"system attributes\" (patrol roads and surveillance technology) specifically inside and around\nBig Bend National Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park, and the Black Gap Wildlife Management\nArea.[[houston-public-media]][[senate-appropriations-committee]] CBP updated project maps to\nreclassify the corridor from surveillance-only to \"Primary Wall,\" confirming steel bollard\nbarrier construction. Federal contractors began physical construction inside Big Bend National\nPark in early August 2026.[[center-biological-diversity]] Advocacy groups filed suit in April\n2026 challenging the legality of the environmental-law waivers, and the Center for Biological\nDiversity filed a separate constitutional challenge after construction\nbegan.[[public-justice]][[center-biological-diversity]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Land:** Construction runs through roadless canyon country and the most intact\nChihuahuan Desert ecosystem in the United States, including terrain along the Rio Grande's\ndesignated Wild and Scenic River corridor.\n\n**Water:** The Rio Grande floodplain has previously demonstrated it is not suited to rigid\nbarrier construction: a documented storm event elsewhere on the border caused debris to dam\nagainst fencing, raising floodwaters to 7 feet deep and scouring barrier\nfoundations.[[no-big-bend]] Opponents have raised concern that construction could damage\nartesian wells and groundwater systems and alter natural water flow. The region is in ongoing\ndrought \u2014 already a stress factor on the Rio Grande's flow and on wildlife water access \u2014 which\nconstruction-related access barriers would compound.[[spectrum-local-news]]\n\n**Habitat & Endangered Species:** The park is documented as one of the most biodiverse in the\nNational Park System, with 75 mammal species, 400 bird species, and 1,200 plant species, many\nfound nowhere else. Named species of concern include the Mexican black bear (endangered in\nMexico, threatened in Texas, representing the northern edge of a population centered in\nMexico's Sierra Madre), mountain lion,[[spectrum-local-news]] and two aquatic species listed or\nproposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act: the Texas hornshell\nmussel[[fish-wildlife]] and the Salina mucket.[[fish-wildlife-2]] A 2024 camera-trap study of\nsteel bollard wall elsewhere on the border (100-mile study, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution)\nfound only 9% of wildlife interactions with the barrier resulted in a successful crossing \u2014 an\n86% reduction versus vehicle barriers \u2014 with 0% successful crossings recorded for deer, black\nbear, mountain lion, and turkey.[[no-big-bend]][[geological-survey]][[wildlife-federation-texas]]\n\n**Climate / Light Pollution:** Big Bend holds an International Dark Sky Association\ndesignation; proposed surveillance towers and lighting systems would introduce artificial\nlight into one of the darkest night skies in the country.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** No environmental impact study was conducted for this project, a direct\nconsequence of the law waivers described above. Conservation groups characterize resulting\nhabitat fragmentation as irreversible once construction is complete, permanently blocking\nmigration routes used by mountain lions, Mexican black bears, and other species for thousands\nof years. Separate ongoing USGS research on a different border segment (Lower Rio Grande\nValley) documents wildlife entrapment and drowning behind barrier fencing as a studied,\nrecurring impact category relevant to Rio Grande barrier construction generally.\n", "impact_cultural": "Not yet documented \u2014 awaiting a specific cited cultural/archaeological resource assessment\nfor this construction segment.\n", "impact_economic": "Total identified contract value for the Big Bend-area barrier work is approximately $4.86\nbillion ($1.7B Southwest Valley Constructors + $1.0B Barnard Segment 1 + $1.2B Fisher Segment 2\n+ $960.4M Fisher Segment 3), entirely taxpayer-funded through congressional appropriations.\nThat combined figure alone exceeds the entire National Park Service's 2025 nationwide operating\nbudget of $3.337 billion \u2014 meaning taxpayers are funding more for barrier construction around\none park than the agency receives to run every national park in the country for a\nyear.[[big-bend-sentinel]] For comparison, the largest other outstanding infrastructure need in\nthe park itself was a $17.9 million water system overhaul \u2014 a figure smaller than half a mile of\nthe contracted barrier work. Nationally, per-mile wall costs have run as high as $22 million per\nmile in prior appropriations, with legal disputes from earlier construction still unresolved\nyears later.[[senate-appropriations-committee]]\nThe overall national border wall program is funded through legislation allocating more than\n$35 billion in taxpayer dollars.\n", "impact_legal": "Advocacy and legal organizations filed suit in mid-April 2026 arguing DHS illegally waived\nenvironmental laws without congressional authorization for the West Texas barrier project. The\nCenter for Biological Diversity filed a further constitutional challenge in August 2026 after\nconstruction began inside the park, arguing the waivers exceeded executive authority. Both\ncases were ongoing as of this page's last verification date.[[wola]][[public-justice]]\n", "impact_health": "A 2024 wildlife camera-trap study (cited above) documents ecological displacement effects, but\na dedicated human-health impact study specific to this project (e.g., construction dust,\ngenerator/light-pollution effects on nearby residents, or health effects on Rio Grande\nVillage/Study Butte area residents) was not identified in current sourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "Tribal consultation status specific to this project is not yet documented \u2014 the waived-laws\nlist includes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Antiquities\nAct, both of which normally require consultation, but no record of consultation having\noccurred, been offered, or been formally declined was identified in current sourcing. A\ndocumented related incident: in May 2026, a construction contractor for wall segments in\nArizona (a different project) damaged a sacred Indigenous site, cited by opponents as a\ncautionary precedent for this project's process.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Southwest Valley Constructors (subsidiary of Kiewit Corporation)", "role": "Prime contractor", "responsibility": "17 miles of vehicle barrier plus ~205 miles of patrol roads, cameras, and sensors in and around Big Bend NP, Big Bend Ranch SP, and Black Gap WMA", "value": "$1.7 billion contract", "url": "https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2026/05/20/552458/new-1-7-billion-contract-in-big-bend-national-park-wont-be-used-for-border-wall-cbp-says/" }, { "name": "Barnard Construction Company", "role": "Prime contractor, Big Bend Segment 1 (Hudspeth County)", "responsibility": "Border barrier construction", "value": "$1.0 billion contract (part of ~$3.16 billion combined Big Bend 1/2/3 contracts)", "url": "https://bigbendsentinel.com/2026/05/20/largest-border-wall-contract-in-us-history-to-span-big-bend-national-park/" }, { "name": "Fisher Sand and Gravel", "role": "Prime contractor, Big Bend Segments 2 and 3 (Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties)", "responsibility": "Border barrier construction", "value": "$1.2 billion and $960.4 million contracts", "url": "https://bigbendsentinel.com/2026/05/20/largest-border-wall-contract-in-us-history-to-span-big-bend-national-park/" }, { "name": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection / DHS", "role": "Contracting and permitting authority", "responsibility": "Issued environmental-law waivers; awarded and administers all listed contracts", "value": "", "url": "https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2026-05-22/confused-about-big-bend-area-border-wall-plans-heres-where-things-stand" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Five Big Bend-area county sheriffs", "position": "Publicly opposed construction plans", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2026-05-22/confused-about-big-bend-area-border-wall-plans-heres-where-things-stand" }, { "name": "Coalition to Protect America's National Parks (former NPS superintendents)", "position": "Urged DHS to reject the border wall waiver", "date": "2026-05-21", "url": "https://protectnps.org/2026/05/21/former-big-bend-national-park-leaders-urge-dhs-to-reject-border-wall-waiver/" }, { "name": "Center for Biological Diversity", "position": "Litigating against the waivers and against construction begun in August 2026", "date": "2026-08-06", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/federal-contractors-begin-border-construction-in-big-bend-national-park-2026-08-06/" }, { "name": "140+ outfitters, local businesses, and recreation groups", "position": "Urged Texas leaders to protect Rio Grande public access and halt the project", "date": "2026-08", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/federal-contractors-begin-border-construction-in-big-bend-national-park-2026-08-06/" }, { "name": "Texas Conservation Alliance", "position": "Opposes a continuous physical wall; supports technology/personnel alternatives instead", "date": "2026-03-02", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2026/3-2-2026-Border-Wall-in-Big-Bend-Threatens-Wildlife" }, { "name": "U.S. Customs and Border Protection", "position": "States the May 2026 contract does not include a 30-foot wall inside the park and instead uses technology and low-profile barriers", "date": "2026-05-20", "url": "https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2026/05/20/552458/new-1-7-billion-contract-in-big-bend-national-park-wont-be-used-for-border-wall-cbp-says/" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1944-06-12", "event": "Big Bend National Park officially established by act of Congress, signed by FDR." }, { "date": "2026-02", "event": "DHS waives nearly 30 federal environmental/cultural laws for a ~150-mile West Texas barrier project initially including the park." }, { "date": "2026-04", "event": "Advocacy groups file suit challenging the legality of the waivers; over 2,000 protest at the Texas Capitol." }, { "date": "2026-05-14", "event": "Additional waivers published." }, { "date": "2026-05-20", "event": "$1.7 billion contract awarded to Southwest Valley Constructors for vehicle barriers, roads, and technology in and around Big Bend." }, { "date": "2026-05", "event": "Big Bend 1/2/3 contracts (~175 miles, Hudspeth/Jeff Davis/Presidio counties) awarded to Barnard Construction and Fisher Sand and Gravel, totaling roughly $3.16 billion." }, { "date": "2026-06-08", "event": "DHS waives roughly 28 federal laws, including NPS Organic Act, ESA, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act, to allow construction inside the park itself." }, { "date": "2026-08-06", "event": "Federal contractors begin physical border construction inside Big Bend National Park; Center for Biological Diversity files constitutional challenge." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "park", "label": "Big Bend National Park management overview", "publisher": "National Park Service", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://home.nps.gov/bibe/learn/management/index.htm", "supports": "Park mission and management context" }, { "id": "park-2", "label": "Texas' Gift to the Nation: The Establishment of Big Bend National Park", "publisher": "National Park Service", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://home.nps.gov/bibe/learn/historyculture/tgttn.htm", "supports": "1944 founding history" }, { "id": "public-justice", "label": "Letter opposing border wall construction in Big Bend", "publisher": "Public Justice", "date": "2026-03", "url": "https://www.publicjustice.net/letter-oppose-border-wall-construction-big-bend-national-park-big-bend-ranch-state-park/", "supports": "Legal opposition record" }, { "id": "senate-appropriations-committee", "label": "Leahy on border wall funding and cost per mile", "publisher": "U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee (Minority)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/minority/leahy-slams-border-wall-funding-as-bumper-sticker-budgeting", "supports": "Cost-per-mile and appropriations figures" }, { "id": "center-biological-diversity", "label": "Federal Contractors Begin Border Construction in Big Bend National Park", "publisher": "Center for Biological Diversity", "date": "2026-08-06", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/federal-contractors-begin-border-construction-in-big-bend-national-park-2026-08-06/", "supports": "Construction start date, waived-laws list, litigation" }, { "id": "center-biological-diversity-2", "label": "Trump Administration Waives Environmental Laws to Blast Border Barriers, Roads Through Big Bend National Park", "publisher": "Center for Biological Diversity", "date": "2026-06-08", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-administration-waives-environmental-laws-to-blast-border-barriers-roads-through-big-bend-national-park-2026-06-08/", "supports": "Park acreage, visitation figures, waiver details" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "texas-public-radio", "label": "Confused about Big Bend area border wall plans? Here's where things stand.", "publisher": "Texas Public Radio", "date": "2026-05-22", "url": "https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2026-05-22/confused-about-big-bend-area-border-wall-plans-heres-where-things-stand", "supports": "Contract details, apprehension statistics, opposition record" }, { "id": "texas-tribune", "label": "$1.7 billion contract awarded 'for border wall in Big Bend'", "publisher": "The Texas Tribune", "date": "2026-05-15", "url": "https://www.texastribune.org/2026/05/15/texas-big-bend-border-wall-contract-awarded-billion/", "supports": "Waiver history, litigation" }, { "id": "houston-public-media", "label": "New $1.7 billion contract in Big Bend National Park won't be used for border wall, CBP says", "publisher": "Houston Public Media / Marfa Public Radio", "date": "2026-05-20", "url": "https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2026/05/20/552458/new-1-7-billion-contract-in-big-bend-national-park-wont-be-used-for-border-wall-cbp-says/", "supports": "CBP's own characterization of the contract scope" }, { "id": "big-bend-sentinel", "label": "Largest border wall contract in US history to span Big Bend National Park", "publisher": "Big Bend Sentinel", "date": "2026-05-20", "url": "https://bigbendsentinel.com/2026/05/20/largest-border-wall-contract-in-us-history-to-span-big-bend-national-park/", "supports": "Cost comparison to NPS operating budget" }, { "id": "big-bend-sentinel-2", "label": "Border Wall to Start Construction", "publisher": "Big Bend Sentinel", "date": "2026-02-03", "url": "https://bigbendsentinel.com/2026/02/03/big-bend-border-wall-nears-reality/", "supports": "February 2026 waiver notices" }, { "id": "wola", "label": "U.S.-Mexico Border Update", "publisher": "WOLA", "date": "2026-06-12", "url": "https://www.wola.org/2026/06/u-s-mexico-border-update-billions-more-for-ice-and-cbp-detention-border-wall-construction-impacts-in-the-americas/", "supports": "Sector-wide apprehension statistics, litigation status" }, { "id": "park-big-bend", "label": "Texas' Gift to the Nation", "publisher": "National Park Service, Big Bend National Park", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.nps.gov/bibe/learn/historyculture/tgttn.htm", "supports": "The state land acquisition and deed of over 700,000 acres to the federal government, and the June 12 1944 establishment of Big Bend as the 27th national park" }, { "id": "no-big-bend", "label": "Big Bend Border Facts", "publisher": "No Big Bend Wall", "date": "2026-02-22", "url": "https://nobigbendwall.org/big-bend-border-facts/", "supports": "2024 wildlife crossing camera study, prior wall flooding incident" }, { "id": "spectrum-local-news", "label": "Environmental concerns of a border wall in Big Bend", "publisher": "Spectrum Local News", "date": "2026-04-23", "url": "https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2026/04/23/environmental-concerns-of-a-border-wall-in-big-bend", "supports": "Species counts, drought context, Mexican black bear status" }, { "id": "homeland-security-secretary", "label": "Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended (Big Bend Sector waiver)", "publisher": "Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary (Federal Register)", "date": "2026-07-02", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/02/2026-13419/determination-pursuant-to-section-102-of-the-illegal-immigration-reform-and-immigrant-responsibility", "supports": "The Secretary's waiver of legal requirements for barrier and road construction in the Big Bend Sector under IIRIRA section 102(c), including waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the stated apprehension and seizure figures for FY2021-FY2025" }, { "id": "fish-wildlife", "label": "Texas Hornshell (Popenaias popeii) \u2014 species profile and final listing rule", "publisher": "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service", "date": "2018-02-09", "url": "https://www.fws.gov/species/texas-hornshell-popenaias-popeii", "supports": "Endangered status for the Texas hornshell under the Endangered Species Act, final rule effective March 12 2018" }, { "id": "fish-wildlife-2", "label": "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Salina Mucket and Mexican Fawnsfoot and Designation of Critical Habitat \u2014 88 Fed. Reg. 47952 (Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0026, RIN 1018-BG11)", "publisher": "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service", "date": "2023-07-25", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/25/2023-15360/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-status-for-salina-mucket-and", "supports": "Verified against the document: its ACTION line reads \"Proposed rule.\" The Service proposes to list the Salina mucket (Potamilus metnecktayi) and Mexican fawnsfoot (Truncilla cognata) \u2014 collectively the Rio Grande mussels \u2014 as endangered with critical habitat. The Salina mucket is therefore proposed for listing, not listed, which is why this page says \"listed or proposed for listing\"" }, { "id": "wildlife-federation-texas", "label": "Physical Border Wall in Big Bend is Ineffective; Threatens Wildlife, Working Lands", "publisher": "National Wildlife Federation / Texas Conservation Alliance", "date": "2026-03-02", "url": "https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2026/3-2-2026-Border-Wall-in-Big-Bend-Threatens-Wildlife", "supports": "TCA position, habitat fragmentation framing" }, { "id": "geological-survey", "label": "Evaluating Impacts of Border Wall Construction on Wildlife Entrapment and Drowning", "publisher": "U.S. Geological Survey", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wetland-and-aquatic-research-center/science/evaluating-impacts-border-wall-construction", "supports": "Wildlife entrapment/drowning research category (different border segment, general relevance)" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-construction-of-the-smart-wall-in-the-big-bend-sector-big-bend-national-park", "comment_deadline": "No published federal comment deadline on record as of last verification; construction is actively underway." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (Superior National Forest watershed)", "slug": "boundary-waters", "location": "Superior National Forest, northeastern Minnesota, near Ely", "designation_type": "Wilderness Area (BWCAW); threat concerns adjacent Superior National Forest mineral leases", "governing_agency": "U.S. Forest Service / Bureau of Land Management", "threat_category": "Sulfide-ore copper-nickel mining \u2014 mineral withdrawal reversal", "status": "Reversed \u2014 20-year mining ban overturned; leases advancing", "coordinates": [ 47.9, -91.5 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "Congress overturned a 20-year mining ban near the BWCAW; Twin Metals' leases are advancing toward reinstatement.", "sections": { "history": "The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness spans roughly 1.1 million acres and is the most\nvisited federally designated wilderness area in the United States, drawing nearly 150,000\nvisitors in 2024.[[minnesota-reformer]][[associated-press]] Twin Metals Minnesota, a subsidiary\nof the Chilean mining conglomerate Antofagasta, has sought to build a copper-nickel sulfide mine\nnear Ely and Babbitt, upstream from the BWCAW, using mineral leases first issued in 1966\n(MNES-01352 and MNES-01353).[[save-boundary-waters]][[friends-boundary-waters]] In 2016, the\nObama administration declined to renew those leases.[[associated-press]] In 2022, after a\nmulti-year environmental review, the Biden administration formally canceled the leases, citing\nrisk of acid mine drainage into the Boundary Waters watershed.[[earthjustice]] In January 2023,\na 20-year mineral withdrawal (mining ban) was ordered across approximately 225,000 acres of the\nSuperior National Forest to protect the watershed from future hardrock\nmining.[[minnesota-reformer]][[circle-blue]]\n", "current_threat": "In 2018, during the first Trump administration, the leases were reinstated in a move later\nfound unlawful.[[earthjustice]] In 2026, the second Trump administration moved to revive the\nproject: DOI Deputy Secretary Katherine MacGregor signed a memo reversing a 2022 legal opinion\nthat had invalidated the leases, and on June 3, 2026 the House Appropriations Committee advanced\nFY27 Interior appropriations language directing federal agencies to reinstate the two Twin\nMetals leases.[[earthjustice]][[save-boundary-waters]] On April 16, 2026, the Senate passed a\nresolution overturning the 20-year mineral withdrawal across the 225,000-acre area (50-49 vote);\nthe House had already passed it, and President Trump signed it on April 27,\n2026.[[circle-blue]][[minnpost]] This legislative approach \u2014 directing agencies to grant leases\nthe company does not currently hold, rather than restoring prior rights \u2014 was noted as an\nunusual mechanism by opponents.[[quetico-superior-wilderness]] Twin Metals still needs its\nmineral leases formally approved and must pass federal and state permitting processes before\nmining could begin.[[outdoor-life]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Ore Body:** Northeastern Minnesota sits atop the Duluth Complex, a major deposit of\ncopper, nickel, cobalt, and other precious metals. Unlike most historic Minnesota iron mining,\nthese metals are bound in sulfide-bearing minerals.[[minnesota-reformer]]\n\n**Water & Contamination:** The central documented risk is acid mine drainage: when sulfide\nminerals are exposed to air and water during mining, they can generate sulfuric acid and\nrelease other pollutants. The Biden administration's 2022 lease cancellation and 2023\nwithdrawal were explicitly based on a multi-year environmental review finding this risk\nunacceptable for the BWCAW watershed.[[earthjustice]][[circle-blue]] The Boundary Waters is a\nuniquely interconnected wilderness of lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands with limited natural\nbuffering capacity against pollutants, making it especially vulnerable to any sulfate or\nheavy-metal loading. Sulfate increases in water are documented to damage wild rice \u2014 a\nculturally and ecologically significant plant in the region \u2014 and to contribute to the creation\nof methylmercury, the form of mercury that bioaccumulates in fish tissue and moves up the food\nchain, including into fish consumed by humans.[[save-boundary-waters-2]]\n\n**Habitat:** A dedicated wildlife/endangered-species inventory specific to the mine footprint is\nnot yet documented in current sourcing.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** Once initiated, acid mine drainage is a process that can continue for\ndecades to centuries after a mine closes, since exposed sulfide rock continues reacting with air\nand water indefinitely absent active, continuing remediation \u2014 a standard concern cited broadly\nin sulfide-mining risk literature and specifically invoked in the 2022/2023 federal review of\nthis project. The BWCAW's status as an interconnected watershed means contamination introduced\nat the mine site is not contained to a single location but can migrate through the connected\nlake system over time.\n", "impact_cultural": "Not yet documented \u2014 awaiting a specific cited cultural/indigenous-resource assessment for this\nsite.\n", "impact_economic": "Statewide, outdoor recreation contributes an estimated $13.9 billion annually to Minnesota's\neconomy, compared with $1.2 billion from extractive industries including mining, according to\nSave the Boundary Waters' published analysis.[[save-boundary-waters-2]] Minnesota Center for\nEnvironmental Advocacy cites a peer-reviewed economic study of the proposed Twin Metals project\nas finding the region would see more jobs and income with no copper mining in the headwaters\nthan with the mine operating; this page cites that characterisation rather than the underlying\nstudy, which has not been retrieved.[[minnesota-center-environmental]] A federal agency announcement previously cited\nconcerns about impacts to a nearly $45 million regional recreation economy specifically tied to\nthe watershed.[[minnesota-center-environmental]] A state-commissioned analysis put mine\nconstruction at $2.77 billion over three years, projected revenues of $12.11 billion over the\nfirst ten years of operation, and employment of about 850\npeople.[[cbs-news-minnesota]][[star-tribune]] Antofagasta acquired Twin Metals from Duluth\nMetals after a 2014 disclosure showed a projected rate of return of roughly\n10%.[[friends-boundary-waters]] Twin Metals has stated much of its mining workforce would come\nfrom outside Minnesota and outside the U.S., citing an insufficient local technical talent base \u2014\na claim relevant to promised in-state job creation figures.[[save-boundary-waters-2]]\n", "impact_legal": "Earthjustice, representing The Wilderness Society, Izaak Walton League of America, and the\nCenter for Biological Diversity, previously sued over the first Trump administration's 2018\nlease reinstatement and successfully defended the Biden administration's 2022 cancellation.\nFollowing the April 2026 congressional resolution and the DOI legal-opinion reversal,\nEarthjustice has stated the fight is continuing; Twin Metals still requires lease approval and\nfull federal/state permitting, a process expected to take years and likely draw further\nlitigation.\n", "impact_health": "Not yet documented \u2014 no dedicated human-health impact study specific to this project (e.g.,\nfor downstream communities or mine workers) was identified in current sourcing, beyond the\ngeneral mercury-bioaccumulation-in-fish pathway noted in the environmental section, which has\ndocumented human health relevance for subsistence and recreational anglers.\n", "consultation_status": "Not yet documented \u2014 a tribal consultation record specific to this project was not identified\nin current sourcing.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (subsidiary of Antofagasta plc, Chile)", "role": "Mine proponent / lease applicant", "responsibility": "Proposes an underground copper-nickel-cobalt sulfide mine near Ely and Babbitt, MN, processing a projected 20,000 tons of ore per day; released its Mine Plan of Operations December 18, 2019", "value": "$2.8 billion projected project cost per 2016-era federal reporting; a separate 2026 industry estimate put a comparable Minnesota copper-nickel project's investment at $2.4 billion. A state-commissioned analysis found mine construction would cost $2.77 billion over three years, with projected revenues of $12.11 billion over the first 10 years of operation, employing about 850 people.", "url": "https://www.startribune.com/boundary-waters-twin-metals-senate-vote-pete-stauber-minnesota-antofagasta-copper-nickel-mining/601751796" }, { "name": "The Bernhardt Group (lobbying firm, led by former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt)", "role": "Lobbyist retained by Twin Metals", "responsibility": "Lobbied federal officials on Twin Metals' behalf in the year leading up to the April 2026 congressional resolution overturning the mining ban", "value": "$380,000 paid by Twin Metals to the Bernhardt Group", "url": "https://www.minnpost.com/glean/2026/04/twin-metals-minnesota-lobby-boundary-waters-policy-win/" }, { "name": "U.S. Forest Service / Bureau of Land Management", "role": "Administering agencies", "responsibility": "Manage the Superior National Forest and the mineral leasing process; would process any reinstated Twin Metals leases (MNES-01352, MNES-01353)", "value": "", "url": "https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/house-committee-works-hand-over-leases-twin-metals" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Earthjustice, on behalf of The Wilderness Society, Izaak Walton League of America, and Center for Biological Diversity", "position": "Opposes lease reinstatement; previously sued over the unlawful 2018 reinstatement", "date": "2026-04-17", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/senate-votes-to-strip-minnesotas-boundary-waters-of-protection-from-mining-pollution" }, { "name": "Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-8)", "position": "Sponsored the resolution overturning the mining ban", "date": "2026-04", "url": "https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/04/15/congress-overturns-ban-on-mining-near-the-boundary-waters/" }, { "name": "Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy", "position": "Opposes the mine and the reversal of protections", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.mncenter.org/defending-boundary-waters-sulfide-mine-pollution" }, { "name": "Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness", "position": "Opposes the mine; disputes the project's financial and environmental viability", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.friends-bwca.org/blog/twin-metals-plan-to-mine/" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1966", "event": "Original Twin Metals mineral leases (MNES-01352, MNES-01353) issued; last renewed 2004." }, { "date": "2014", "event": "Antofagasta acquires Twin Metals from Duluth Metals after a 2014 disclosure showed a weak ~10% projected rate of return." }, { "date": "2016", "event": "Obama administration declines to renew the leases." }, { "date": "2018", "event": "First Trump administration reinstates the leases, later found to have done so unlawfully." }, { "date": "2019-12-18", "event": "Twin Metals releases its Mine Plan of Operations." }, { "date": "2022-01", "event": "Biden administration formally cancels the leases, citing acid mine drainage risk." }, { "date": "2023-01", "event": "20-year mineral withdrawal ordered across ~225,000 acres of Superior National Forest." }, { "date": "2026 (date TBD)", "event": "DOI Deputy Secretary MacGregor signs memo reversing 2022 legal opinion invalidating the leases." }, { "date": "2026-06-03", "event": "House Appropriations Committee advances FY27 language to reinstate the Twin Metals leases." }, { "date": "2026-04-16", "event": "Senate passes resolution (50-49) overturning the 20-year mineral withdrawal." }, { "date": "2026-04-27", "event": "President Trump signs the resolution into law." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "earthjustice", "label": "Senate Votes to Strip Minnesota's Boundary Waters of Protection from Mining Pollution", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2026-04-17", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/senate-votes-to-strip-minnesotas-boundary-waters-of-protection-from-mining-pollution", "supports": "Legal history, DOI memo, litigation posture" }, { "id": "save-boundary-waters", "label": "House committee works to hand over leases to Twin Metals", "publisher": "Save the Boundary Waters", "date": "2026-06-11", "url": "https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/house-committee-works-hand-over-leases-twin-metals", "supports": "Lease numbers, FY27 appropriations language, legal mechanism" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "minnesota-reformer", "label": "Congress overturns ban on mining near the Boundary Waters", "publisher": "Minnesota Reformer", "date": "2026-04-17", "url": "https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/04/15/congress-overturns-ban-on-mining-near-the-boundary-waters/", "supports": "225,000-acre figure, 2024 visitation, Antofagasta ownership, Duluth Complex geology" }, { "id": "circle-blue", "label": "Senate Overturns Ban On Mining Near Boundary Waters Wilderness", "publisher": "Circle of Blue", "date": "2026-04-28", "url": "https://www.circleofblue.org/2026/great-lakes/senate-overturns-ban-on-mining-near-boundary-waters-wilderness/", "supports": "Senate vote date/margin, stated rationale for the original ban" }, { "id": "star-tribune", "label": "What to know about Twin Metals, the company at the center of the overturned mining ban", "publisher": "Star Tribune", "date": "2026-04-16", "url": "https://www.startribune.com/boundary-waters-twin-metals-senate-vote-pete-stauber-minnesota-antofagasta-copper-nickel-mining/601751796", "supports": "Antofagasta financials, comparable project investment figures, and the proponents' stated investment range of approximately $1.7 billion to $2.77 billion if development and construction proceed" }, { "id": "minnpost", "label": "The cost last year to gain mining access near the Boundary Waters? About $380K.", "publisher": "MinnPost", "date": "2026-04-30", "url": "https://www.minnpost.com/glean/2026/04/twin-metals-minnesota-lobby-boundary-waters-policy-win/", "supports": "Bernhardt Group lobbying fee, signing date" }, { "id": "outdoor-life", "label": "Twin Metals Paid Former Trump Officials $380K...", "publisher": "Outdoor Life", "date": "2026-05-01", "url": "https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/boundary-waters-mine-vote-breakdown/", "supports": "Permitting timeline context only; the $380,000 Bernhardt Group lobbying figure is cited to MinnPost above" }, { "id": "quetico-superior-wilderness", "label": "Officials lay more groundwork to reinstate mineral leases near BWCAW despite opposition", "publisher": "Quetico Superior Wilderness News", "date": "2025-11-14", "url": "https://queticosuperior.org/officials-lay-more-groundwork-to-reinstate-mineral-leases-near-bwcaw-despite-opposition/", "supports": "Legislative history, prior bill text references" }, { "id": "minnesota-center-environmental", "label": "Defending the Boundary Waters from sulfide mine pollution", "publisher": "Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.mncenter.org/defending-boundary-waters-sulfide-mine-pollution", "supports": "$45 million recreation economy figure, lease history" }, { "id": "associated-press", "label": "Feds Deny Minerals Lease Renewals For Twin Metals", "publisher": "Associated Press (via CBS News)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/feds-deny-minerals-lease-renewals-for-twin-metals", "supports": "2016 non-renewal rationale, visitation figures, $2.8B project cost" }, { "id": "friends-boundary-waters", "label": "Copper and Greed: Inside Twin Metals' Disastrous Plan for the Boundary Waters", "publisher": "Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness", "date": "2026-02-17", "url": "https://www.friends-bwca.org/blog/twin-metals-plan-to-mine/", "supports": "Duluth Metals/Antofagasta acquisition history, IRR figures, Mine Plan of Operations date" }, { "id": "save-boundary-waters-2", "label": "Protecting the Boundary Waters: Debunking myths about the proposed Twin Metals mine", "publisher": "Save the Boundary Waters", "date": "2026-06-11", "url": "https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/protecting-boundary-waters-debunking-myths-about-proposed-twin-metals-mine-headwaters-boundary", "supports": "$13.9B vs $1.2B economic comparison, sulfate/wild rice/methylmercury detail, workforce sourcing claim" }, { "id": "cbs-news-minnesota", "label": "Study shows Twin Metals mine economically feasible", "publisher": "CBS News Minnesota", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/study-shows-twin-metals-mine-economically-feasible", "supports": "State-commissioned $2.77B construction cost, $12.11B revenue, 850-job figures" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/", "comment_deadline": "No published federal comment deadline on record as of last verification; legislative and regulatory actions are ongoing." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Chaco Culture National Historical Park (Greater Chaco Landscape)", "slug": "chaco-culture", "location": "San Juan County, northwestern New Mexico", "designation_type": "National Historical Park; UNESCO World Heritage Site. Threat concerns the surrounding 10-mile buffer under BLM jurisdiction", "governing_agency": "National Park Service (park); Bureau of Land Management (surrounding buffer)", "threat_category": "Oil and gas drilling \u2014 mineral withdrawal revocation", "status": "Proposed \u2014 public comment period closed, decision pending", "coordinates": [ 36.0608, -107.9556 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "BLM proposes revoking the 10-mile, 336,404-acre drilling buffer around Chaco Canyon.", "sections": { "history": "Chaco Canyon was a major ceremonial and cultural center for the ancestral Puebloan world\nbetween roughly 850 and 1250 A.D. It holds continuing living significance for today's Pueblo\ncommunities, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and other Indigenous nations. Chaco Culture\nNational Historical Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, containing great houses, kivas, and\nother structures such as Pueblo Bonito.[[high-country-news]] After nearly a decade of advocacy\nby tribes, archaeologists, and conservation groups, and a public process spanning about 1.5\nyears with 150 days of public comment,[[parks-conservation-association]] the BLM established\nPublic Land Order 7923 in June 2023, withdrawing approximately 336,404 acres within a 10-mile\nradius of the park from new mineral leasing and mining claims for 20\nyears.[[land-management-2]][[new-mexico-political]]\n", "current_threat": "On October 30, 2025, the Interior Department began tribal consultation on a proposal to reverse\nPublic Land Order 7923. On March 31, 2026, the BLM opened a public scoping/comment period \u2014\ninitially just seven days, later extended, closing July 29, 2026 \u2014 on a proposal to revoke the\nwithdrawal and reopen the 336,404-acre buffer to oil and gas\nleasing.[[land-management-nepa]][[land-management-2]] Secondary reporting on the BLM's draft\nenvironmental assessment puts the share of the buffer with meaningful oil and gas development\npotential at under 1%; that figure has not been confirmed against the assessment text for this\npage, though the agency's separately commissioned development scenario reaches a compatible\nconclusion (see Economic Impact).[[new-mexico-political]][[new-mexico-institute]] Navajo Nation\nPresident Buu Nygren has publicly supported\nending the buffer, citing financial harm to Navajo allottees within the zone, while the Pueblo\nof Acoma and the All Pueblo Council of Governors have opposed the\nrollback.[[tucson-com-cronkite]][[new-mexico-wilderness-2]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Land Use Context:** Chaco sits within the San Juan Basin, one of the most\nintensively developed oil and gas regions in the country. Roughly 90% of the broader Greater\nChaco landscape outside the 10-mile buffer is already leased for oil and gas development,\nmeaning the buffer represents most of what remains unleased in the immediate\nregion.[[our-public-lands]][[shaleexp]][[drillings]]\n\n**Climate & Air Quality:** The San Juan Basin has been identified by NASA satellite methane\nmapping as the single largest regional methane anomaly (\"hot spot\") in the continental United\nStates \u2014 a roughly 2,500-square-mile methane cloud, comparable in size to the state of\nDelaware, spanning the Four Corners region including national parks like\nChaco.[[globalchange-gov]][[parks-conservation-association-2]] Estimates have put the value of\nnatural gas lost annually to flaring and venting in the region above $2\nbillion.[[high-country-news]] Methane traps roughly 84 times more heat than CO2 over its first\n20 years in the atmosphere. Independent USGS field measurement (983 flux-chamber readings,\n2022-2023) confirmed natural geologic seepage exists along specific fault-associated outcrops in\nthe basin, distinct from \u2014 and smaller than \u2014 the oil-and-gas-driven emissions documented by\nsatellite.[[usgs]]\n\n**Air Quality & Public Health:** Approximately 75% of San Juan County residents live within a\nhalf mile of oil and gas infrastructure, and many are documented to suffer respiratory illness\nand other poor health outcomes tied to air pollution from existing\noperations.[[parks-conservation-association-2]] Weakening the 10-mile buffer would extend this\nsame industrial footprint closer to the park itself.\n\n**Night Sky / Visual Resources:** Chaco is documented for exceptional dark-sky quality;\nexisting gas flares in the surrounding basin already light up the night sky, and expanding\ndrilling into the buffer would further degrade the dark-sky and viewshed experience across the\n91,793-acre area immediately visible from the park.[[trust-historic-preservation]]\n\n**Cultural/Archaeological (overlapping with land disturbance):** Archaeologists estimate as\nmany as 12,000 cultural sites and traditional cultural places may lie within the 5-to-10-mile\nzone, though only 15-20% of the area has been surveyed; ground disturbance from drilling risks\ndamaging sites before they are even identified.[[new-mexico-wilderness]] A separate count puts\nthe number of recorded historic properties in the affected area at 7,552.[[more-than-just]]\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** A National Parks Conservation Association program manager has\ncharacterized the proposal as risking \"a thousand years of history\" \u2014 framing the loss as\nnon-recoverable given the buffer protects both undiscovered archaeological resources and the\nvisual/atmospheric integrity of a landscape with a documented history of prior societal\ncollapse tied partly to environmental stress (a historical drought is cited as a factor in the\noriginal Chacoan community's dispersal circa 1150-1250 A.D.).\n", "impact_cultural": "See combined cultural/archaeological detail folded into the environmental section above.\n", "impact_economic": "A prior single BLM lease sale bordering the buffer area generated $3 million in\nbids.[[new-mexico-political]] Secondary reporting on the BLM's environmental assessment for the\n2026 revocation puts the share of the buffer with meaningful oil and gas development potential\nat under 1% \u2014 a figure this page has not confirmed against the assessment text \u2014 raising the\nquestion of how much additional tax or royalty revenue the revocation would realistically\ngenerate relative to the cultural and tourism value of the UNESCO World Heritage Site it would\nexpose to drilling.[[new-mexico-political]]\nSeparately, New Mexico's oil and gas sector overall employs nearly 20,000 people statewide and\ncontributed $2.2 billion to state coffers in the most recent reporting\nyear[[stateline-nrdc-reporting]] (roughly half the\nstate's general fund) \u2014 context for the industry's broader economic weight in the state, though\nnot a figure specific to the 336,404-acre buffer itself. A dedicated fiscal comparison study\nspecific to the buffer was not identified in current sourcing.\n\nAn independent assessment reaches the same conclusion from the industry side. The Reasonably\nForeseeable Development scenario prepared for the BLM's Farmington Field Office by New Mexico\nInstitute of Mining and Technology, dated July 17, 2025 \u2014 roughly nine months before the\nrevocation was proposed \u2014 excludes the withdrawal area from its 30-year development forecast\naltogether. It states that \"further Fruitland Coal development within the withdrawal area is not\nlikely and thus has not been included in the prediction period,\" because \"the recent lack of\nactivity, the low resource recovery (~0.5 Bscf/well), and the rapid declining production of\nexisting wells all suggest a depleted resource of limited extent.\" For the region's other main\ntarget, it finds that \"development is expected to continue to the northeast of the buffer zone,\"\nwith the Gallup/Mancos formations turning wet to the south-west and therefore \"not favorable\ntargets for future development.\" The same report projects a 30-year base case of 413 million\nbarrels of oil and 10.5 trillion cubic feet of gas across the whole field office, of which the\nfederal share is 265 million barrels and 7.9 Tcf.[[new-mexico-institute]] BLM records show 79\nexisting leases covering approximately 94,010 acres of federal mineral estate within or\npartially within the withdrawal area, approximately 71,260 of those acres lying inside it, with\n78 of the 79 held by production as of April 1, 2023 \u2014 leases the withdrawal never\naffected.[[land-management]]\n", "impact_legal": "As of this page's last verification, the BLM had not issued a final decision on the proposed\nrevocation following the close of the public comment period on July 29, 2026.\n", "impact_health": "Approximately 75% of San Juan County residents live within a half mile of oil and gas\ninfrastructure, and this population is documented to suffer respiratory illness and other poor\nhealth outcomes linked to air pollution from existing operations (see environmental section);\nexpanding drilling into the buffer would extend this same industrial footprint closer to areas\nwith documented resident exposure.\n", "consultation_status": "The Interior Department began tribal consultation on reversing PLO 7923 on October 30, 2025.\nThe subsequent public comment period was initially set at just seven days (March 31, 2026) \u2014\na sharp contrast to the original withdrawal's 1.5-year process with 150 days of public comment\n\u2014 before being extended to close July 29, 2026.[[parks-conservation-association]] Public\nresponse was substantial: a coalition tally recorded roughly 110,000 comments to the BLM as of\nApril 2026,[[archaeology-southwest]] and over 200,000 by the close of the\nperiod.[[new-mexico-wilderness-2]] Navajo Nation leadership and Pueblo/All Pueblo Council of\nGovernors leadership have taken opposing public positions on the underlying policy, both\nengaging with the consultation process but reaching different conclusions.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Hilcorp San Juan LP / Hilcorp Energy I LP", "role": "Largest documented leaseholder/operator in the San Juan Basin surrounding Chaco", "responsibility": "Holds approximately 1,797 authorized leases (San Juan LP) and 728 operating-rights leases (Energy I LP) across roughly 1.16 million combined acres in San Juan County, NM, per BLM lease records; would be positioned to expand operations into the buffer if the withdrawal is revoked", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 specific buffer-zone acreage or dollar value attributable to Hilcorp specifically not established in current sourcing", "url": "https://thedrillings.com/usa/new-mexico/san-juan-nm045" }, { "name": "Dugan Production Co.", "role": "Major operating-rights holder in San Juan County", "responsibility": "Holds approximately 754 leases, ~471 authorized, across roughly 244,895 acres in the county", "value": "Not yet documented", "url": "https://thedrillings.com/usa/new-mexico/san-juan-nm045" }, { "name": "Bureau of Land Management, Farmington Field Office", "role": "Administering agency", "responsibility": "Manages the 10-mile buffer and would administer any new leasing if the withdrawal is revoked; issued the proposed rulemaking (DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2026-0002-EA)", "value": "", "url": "https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=D949F582-402D-F111-8341-001DD804183B" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Pueblo of Acoma, supported by the All Pueblo Council of Governors", "position": "Nominated Greater Chaco for the National Trust's endangered list; opposes rollback", "date": "2026-05-20", "url": "https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/article_3c437dfa-8167-4d72-82b8-87c25f085a8e.html" }, { "name": "Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren", "position": "Supports ending the current buffer, citing financial impact on Navajo allottees; has called for a smaller or modified zone", "date": "2026-05-13", "url": "https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/article_3c437dfa-8167-4d72-82b8-87c25f085a8e.html" }, { "name": "National Trust for Historic Preservation", "position": "Opposes revocation of the buffer", "date": "2026-04-08", "url": "https://savingplaces.org/public-lands/updates/national-trust-comments-on-revocation-protective-buffer-at-chaco-culture-nhp" }, { "name": "National Parks Conservation Association", "position": "Opposes revocation of the buffer, citing air/night-sky degradation and cultural risk", "date": "2026-04", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11370-revoking-chaco-canyon-protections-would-risk-a-thousand-years-of-history" }, { "name": "New Mexico Wild", "position": "Opposes revocation, citing habitat fragmentation and air/night-sky quality degradation", "date": "2026-04-02", "url": "https://ourpubliclandsandwaters.substack.com/p/blm-wants-to-allow-drilling-on-lands" }, { "name": "New Mexico Oil and Gas Association", "position": "Supports continued development, stating New Mexico has 'safely produced oil and natural gas...while protecting cultural and historic treasures'", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/feds-plan-to-issue-oil-leases-near-chaco-canyon-in/article_05e01868-ebee-5cc4-b88c-cfd55b0c3330.html" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "850-1250 (A.D.)", "event": "Chaco Canyon serves as a major ceremonial and cultural center for the ancestral Puebloan world; a documented ~75-year drought is cited among factors in its eventual decline." }, { "date": "2023-06", "event": "BLM establishes Public Land Order 7923, withdrawing 336,404 acres around the park from mineral leasing for 20 years, after a 1.5-year, 150-day public process." }, { "date": "2025-10-30", "event": "Interior Department begins tribal consultation on reversing PLO 7923." }, { "date": "2026-03-31", "event": "BLM opens a public comment period on revoking the withdrawal, initially seven days." }, { "date": "2026-05-20", "event": "National Trust names the Greater Chaco Cultural Landscape one of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places for 2026." }, { "date": "2026-07-29", "event": "Extended public comment period on the proposed revocation closes." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "land-management-nepa", "label": "Evaluation of Potential Revocation of Chaco Withdrawal \u2014 draft environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2026-0002-EA)", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management, National NEPA Register", "date": "2026", "url": "https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=D949F582-402D-F111-8341-001DD804183B", "supports": "Acreage figures, development-potential finding, comment deadline, proposed revocation of Public Land Order No. 7923" }, { "id": "land-management", "label": "Bureau of Land Management Takes Next Steps to Protect Chaco Canyon", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2023", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-takes-next-steps-protect-chaco-canyon", "supports": "79 existing oil and gas leases covering approximately 94,010 acres of federal mineral estate within or partially within the 10-mile withdrawal area, of which approximately 71,260 leased acres lie inside it; 78 of the 79 held by production as of April 1 2023; and that the withdrawal bars new federal leasing without affecting existing valid leases" }, { "id": "new-mexico-institute", "label": "Update to the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) for Oil and Gas Activities in the Farmington Field Office, Northwestern New Mexico \u2014 final report to BLM, principal investigator Dr. Thomas W. Engler", "publisher": "New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Farmington Field Office", "date": "2025-07-17", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-07/rfd-oil-and-gas-blm-nm-ffo-071725.pdf", "supports": "That the 10-mile withdrawal approved in 2023 removed further leasing until 2043 without affecting existing leases; that further Fruitland Coal development inside the withdrawal area \"is not likely and thus has not been included in the prediction period\" given \"a depleted resource of limited extent\" with recovery around 0.5 Bscf per well; that Mancos/Gallup development \"is expected to continue to the northeast of the buffer zone\" with south-western targets \"not favorable\"; the field office's roughly 4.2 million acres of federal mineral ownership across San Juan, Rio Arriba, Sandoval and McKinley Counties; and a 30-year base case of 413 million barrels of oil and 10.5 Tcf of gas, federal share 265 million barrels and 7.9 Tcf" }, { "id": "land-management-2", "label": "BLM Seeks Input on Proposed Withdrawal Revocation Near Chaco Culture National Historical Park", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-input-proposed-withdrawal-revocation-near-chaco-culture-national-historical", "supports": "336,404-acre withdrawal figure, 20-year term, July 29 2026 comment deadline" }, { "id": "trust-historic-preservation", "label": "Comments on the Potential Revocation of the Protective Buffer at Chaco Culture NHP", "publisher": "National Trust for Historic Preservation", "date": "2026-04-08", "url": "https://savingplaces.org/public-lands/updates/national-trust-comments-on-revocation-protective-buffer-at-chaco-culture-nhp", "supports": "2019/2023 buffer history, 91,793-acre viewshed figure" }, { "id": "globalchange-gov", "label": "Investigating methane emissions in the San Juan Basin", "publisher": "GlobalChange.gov (U.S. Global Change Research Program)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.globalchange.gov/highlights/investigating-methane-emissions-san-juan-basin", "supports": "Satellite methane hot-spot identification" }, { "id": "usgs", "label": "Bottom-up characterization of geologic methane emissions in the San Juan Basin", "publisher": "USGS", "date": "2026-03-19", "url": "https://www.usgs.gov/publications/bottom-characterization-geologic-methane-emissions-san-juan-basin-southwestern-usa", "supports": "Natural vs. industrial methane seepage distinction, field measurement methodology" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "tucson-com-cronkite", "label": "Feds, tribes spar over drilling at Chaco Canyon", "publisher": "Tucson.com / Cronkite News", "date": "2026-05-24", "url": "https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/article_3c437dfa-8167-4d72-82b8-87c25f085a8e.html", "supports": "Nygren position, National Trust endangered listing" }, { "id": "our-public-lands", "label": "BLM Wants to Allow Drilling on Lands Directly Bordering Chaco Culture NHP", "publisher": "Our Public Lands and Waters (Substack)", "date": "2026-04-02", "url": "https://ourpubliclandsandwaters.substack.com/p/blm-wants-to-allow-drilling-on-lands", "supports": "The 90% regional leasing figure only; the New Mexico Wild statement is now cited to that organization directly above, and comment period details to the BLM press release and NEPA register entry" }, { "id": "more-than-just", "label": "Stop oil and gas drilling around Chaco Culture Park", "publisher": "More Than Just Parks", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://morethanjustparks.com/public-lands-action-network/4294", "supports": "7,552 historic properties figure only; the July 29 2026 comment deadline and the acreage are cited to the BLM press release and NEPA register entry above" }, { "id": "new-mexico-wilderness", "label": "Revoking Chaco Canyon Protections Ignores Pueblos, Tribes, and the Public", "publisher": "New Mexico Wilderness Alliance (original publisher; also reposted by Archaeology Southwest)", "date": "2026-04", "url": "https://nmwild.org/revoking-chaco-canyon-protections-ignores-pueblos-tribes-and-the-public/", "supports": "12,000 cultural sites estimate, survey coverage percentage, and the organization's stated position on the revocation" }, { "id": "new-mexico-wilderness-2", "label": "Hundreds of Thousands of Americans File Comments on Trump Administration Plan to Open Greater Chaco Landscape to Drilling", "publisher": "New Mexico Wilderness Alliance", "date": "2026-07-30", "url": "https://nmwild.org/press-release-hundreds-of-thousands-of-americans-file-comments-on-trump-administration-plan-to-open-greater-chaco-landscape-to-drilling/", "supports": "Over 200,000 comments filed on the draft environmental assessment and more than 100,000 during the earlier scoping period; the 14-day comment period; a delegation of more than 40 Pueblo governors and cultural leaders; a letter from more than 370 former National Park leaders; and statements from named Pueblo and Din\u00e9 officials including APCG Chairman Joey Sanchez and Acoma Governor Charles Riley. Note this release gives Public Land Order 7923 as approximately 338,690 acres, against BLM's 336,404; this page uses the BLM figure" }, { "id": "archaeology-southwest", "label": "Continuing Coverage: The Chaco Protection Zone", "publisher": "Archaeology Southwest", "date": "2026-04-09", "url": "https://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/2026/04/09/continuing-coverage-the-chaco-protection-zone/", "supports": "Coalition tracking of roughly 110,000 comments to BLM as of April 2026, and the role of Archaeology Southwest's Paul Reed in the protection coalition" }, { "id": "parks-conservation-association", "label": "Revoking Chaco Canyon Protections Would Risk A Thousand Years of History", "publisher": "National Parks Conservation Association", "date": "2026-04", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11370-revoking-chaco-canyon-protections-would-risk-a-thousand-years-of-history", "supports": "150-day original comment process, NPCA statement" }, { "id": "parks-conservation-association-2", "label": "Why Chaco Culture's Buffer Matters", "publisher": "National Parks Conservation Association", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/10970-why-chaco-culture-s-buffer-matters", "supports": "Methane cloud size, resident proximity to infrastructure, respiratory health impacts" }, { "id": "high-country-news", "label": "Chaco: A World Heritage site faces fracking", "publisher": "High Country News", "date": "2024-01-22", "url": "https://www.hcn.org/articles/chaco-a-world-heritage-site-faces-fracking/", "supports": "Historical drought/decline framing, flared gas dollar-value estimate" }, { "id": "new-mexico-political", "label": "Higher natural gas prices lead to increased production in the San Juan Basin", "publisher": "New Mexico Political Report", "date": "2023-06-07", "url": "https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/06/07/higher-natural-gas-prices-lead-to-increased-production-in-the-san-juan-basin/", "supports": "2023 withdrawal context, basin leasing dynamics" }, { "id": "stateline-nrdc-reporting", "label": "New Mexico Has a Methane Cloud Visible by Satellite. It Also Has Bold Climate Plans.", "publisher": "Stateline / NRDC reporting", "date": "2026-04-02", "url": "https://www.nrdc.org/stories/new-mexico-has-methane-cloud-visible-satellite-it-also-has-bold-climate-plans", "supports": "State oil/gas employment and revenue figures" }, { "id": "shaleexp", "label": "Active Oil and Gas Companies in San Juan County, NM", "publisher": "ShaleExp", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.shalexp.com/new-mexico/san-juan-county/companies", "supports": "Operator identification cross-reference only. Commercial aggregation of public well and operator records, used to corroborate operator names rather than as a source for lease counts or acreage" }, { "id": "drillings", "label": "Oil and Gas In San Juan County, New Mexico", "publisher": "The Drillings", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://thedrillings.com/usa/new-mexico/san-juan-nm045", "supports": "Per-operator lease counts and acreage in San Juan County. This is a commercial presentation of BLM LR2000 / Mineral and Land Records System data, not the agency record itself; the underlying BLM query should be cited directly, and the buffer-area lease totals are cited to the BLM press release above" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://morethanjustparks.com/public-lands-action-network/4294", "comment_deadline": "Public comment period closed July 29, 2026; final BLM decision pending as of last verification." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Pinyon Plain Uranium Mine (Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument, Grand Canyon region)", "slug": "grand-canyon-pinyon-plain", "location": "Kaibab National Forest, ~6-10 miles from Grand Canyon National Park's South Rim, Coconino County, AZ", "designation_type": "Active uranium mine grandfathered inside a National Monument (Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni, designated 2023)", "governing_agency": "U.S. Forest Service (Kaibab National Forest); Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; EPA Region 9", "threat_category": "Uranium mining \u2014 active groundwater contamination risk", "status": "Active \u2014 in production, water/permit disputes ongoing", "coordinates": [ 35.9722, -112.1 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "Active uranium mine 6 miles from the Grand Canyon has pumped 80+ million gallons of groundwater since 2016; EPA finds contamination potential.", "sections": { "history": "The mine (originally Canyon Mine, renamed Pinyon Plain Mine in November\n2020)[[securities-exchange-commission]] was first approved in the 1980s under a Plan of\nOperations from 1986 and closed in 1992 when uranium prices fell to\n$6.40/lb.[[forest-kaibab-forest]][[associated-press]] In 2012, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar\nestablished a temporary 20-year administrative mining ban across roughly 1 million acres of\npublic land near the Grand Canyon. The Forest Service determined Canyon Mine held \"valid\nexisting rights\" under the 1872 Mining Law, exempting it from that\nban.[[forest-kaibab-forest]][[grand-canyon-trust]] In August 2023, President Biden designated\nthe Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni \u2014 Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument at\nthe request of tribes, withdrawing the area from future mineral entry; Pinyon Plain was again\ngrandfathered in as a pre-existing right and is the only active mine operating inside the\nmonument's boundary.[[navajo-hopi-observer]][[forest-kaibab-forest]] Red Butte, a Havasupai\nsacred site near the mine, was separately designated a traditional cultural property under the\nNational Historic Preservation Act.[[grand-canyon-trust]]\n", "current_threat": "Operator Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. began active ore extraction in December 2023\n(first ore removed to the surface January 8, 2024) after decades of litigation, citing rising\nuranium prices (roughly $57/lb as of recent reporting, up from the 1992 shutdown price of\n$6.40/lb).[[associated-press]][[arizona-daily-sun]] Miners pierced an aquifer during shaft\nconstruction in 2016, and the mine has pumped groundwater out of the shaft continuously\nsince.[[grand-canyon-trust-2]] Ore is trucked roughly 300 miles across Navajo Nation land to the\nWhite Mesa Mill near Bears Ears National Monument for processing (see\n/sites/bears-ears/).[[arizona-daily-sun]] In July 2026, the Havasupai Tribe formally objected to\na proposed amendment to the mine's aquifer protection permit that would raise the allowable\narsenic limit at a monitoring well, arguing Arizona regulators are attempting to weaken\npollution limits without proper public\nprocess.[[arizona-environmental-quality]][[grand-canyon-trust-2]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Hydrology:** The mine sits above the deep Redwall-Muav Aquifer, which feeds seeps\nand springs throughout the Grand Canyon and is the Havasupai people's sole source of drinking\nwater via Havasu Creek and Havasu Spring near Supai Village. A shallower C-aquifer and the\ndeeper R-aquifer are separated by more than 2,000 feet of rock, but numerous studies \u2014\nincluding a 2024 published groundwater study \u2014 strongly suggest likely connectivity between them\nvia fractures and faults.[[epa]][[grand-canyon-trust-2]]\n\n**Water & Contamination:** Over the past decade the mine has pumped more than 80 million\ngallons of groundwater out of the mine shaft (6.7 million gallons in 2025 alone, per the\ncompany's own 2025 annual report), stored in an uncovered pond inside the site's fence. A 2024\npublished groundwater study found potential for contamination from the mine to reach springs on\nthe Grand Canyon's South Rim and Havasu Spring near Supai Village, though it called for further\nmonitoring-well data to confirm exact flow paths.[[grand-canyon-trust-2]] A 2026 EPA technical\nstudy, requested by the Havasupai Tribe, similarly found \"potential\" for the mine to contaminate\nlocal and regional groundwater resources vital to the Havasupai Reservation's water supply,\nwhile stating further investigation is needed to confirm the extent of aquifer\nconnectivity.[[epa]]\n\n**Habitat & Cultural Site:** The mine sits near Red Butte, the Havasupai Tribe's sacred\nmountain, a designated National Historic Preservation Act traditional cultural property.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** Groundwater contamination from mining, if it occurs, would affect a\naquifer system already documented as slow to characterize (2,000+ feet of separating rock,\nongoing scientific uncertainty about connectivity) \u2014 meaning any contamination could take years\nto be detected and would be extremely difficult to remediate once it reaches a deep aquifer\nsupplying a community's sole water source.\n", "impact_cultural": "See Red Butte traditional cultural property designation above. The mine sits within a monument\ndesignated specifically at tribal request to protect this landscape, yet operates under a legal\nexemption tribes have unsuccessfully litigated against for years.\n", "impact_economic": "Energy Fuels reported producing about 1.6 million pounds of finished U3O8 (yellowcake) at the\nWhite Mesa Mill in the first half of 2026, sourced partly from Pinyon Plain ore; because mining\nis currently in \"lower grade areas\" producing less ore than the mill can process, mill\noperations were scheduled to pause for Q3 2026 before resuming.[[arizona-daily-sun]] A dedicated cost-benefit or\ntaxpayer-impact analysis specific to this mine (e.g., value of foregone groundwater, monitoring\ncosts borne by EPA/state regulators) was not identified in current sourcing.\n", "impact_legal": "The Havasupai Tribe's lawsuit challenging the mine's exemption from the 2012 mining ban was\ndismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal. The Tribe, Grand Canyon Trust, Center for\nBiological Diversity, and Sierra Club have separately and repeatedly legally challenged the\nForest Service's decisions allowing the mine to\noperate.[[grand-canyon-trust]][[navajo-hopi-observer]] As of July 2026, the Havasupai Tribe was\nformally objecting to a proposed state permit amendment loosening the arsenic limit at a mine\nmonitoring well.[[arizona-environmental-quality]]\n", "impact_health": "The Havasupai Tribe's core stated concern is direct: contamination reaching their sole source\nof drinking water. No separate occupational or community air-quality health study specific to\nthis mine was identified in current sourcing, distinct from the water-contamination risk\nalready detailed above.\n", "consultation_status": "The Forest Service was documented as \"not a part of\" discussions between Energy Fuels and the\nNavajo Nation over ore-transport routes across Navajo land in 2024 \u2014 meaning the relevant\nfederal land-managing agency was absent from the tribal negotiation that determined how ore\nmoves across a second tribal nation's territory.[[arizona-daily-sun]] The Havasupai Tribe's July\n2026 objection to the arsenic permit amendment specifically states Arizona regulators are \"not\nrequired to accept formal comments\" on the change, meaning no mandated public/tribal\nconsultation applies to that particular permit action even as the Tribe formally requests\none.[[arizona-environmental-quality]][[grand-canyon-trust-2]]\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc., Canada)", "role": "Mine operator; also owns the destination processing mill", "responsibility": "Operates Pinyon Plain Mine (17-acre site) and trucks ore approximately 300 miles across Navajo Nation land to its own White Mesa Mill near Bears Ears for processing \u2014 the same company profiled in the Bears Ears case file", "value": "~1.6 million lbs U3O8 produced at White Mesa Mill in H1 2026 (partly from this mine's ore); mine has been in planning/ownership since the 1980s", "url": "https://azdailysun.com/news/local/environment/havasupai-tribe-objects-to-aquifer-protection-permit-change-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_c996bad6-32f9-42a4-9045-c59fde6df017.amp.html" }, { "name": "Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)", "role": "State permitting authority", "responsibility": "Issued the mine's Individual Aquifer Protection Program Permit (No. P-100333, July 31, 2024); currently considering an amendment to raise the permitted arsenic limit at a monitoring well", "value": "", "url": "https://azdeq.gov/WQD/PinyonPlainMine" }, { "name": "U.S. Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest", "role": "Land-managing agency", "responsibility": "Approved the mine's Plan of Operations under a 2020 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision; determined the mine holds valid existing mining rights exempting it from the regional mining ban", "value": "", "url": "https://fs.usda.gov/r03/kaibab/forest-products/nonwood-products/pinyon-plain-mine-formerly-canyon-uranium-mine" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Havasupai Tribe", "position": "Opposes the mine; has litigated against it for decades and formally objects to a 2026 permit amendment", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://azdailysun.com/news/local/environment/havasupai-tribe-objects-to-aquifer-protection-permit-change-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_c996bad6-32f9-42a4-9045-c59fde6df017.amp.html" }, { "name": "Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club", "position": "Have jointly and separately legally challenged the mine's operation", "date": "ongoing", "url": "https://www.nhonews.com/features/uranium-mining-operations-begin-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_9c73e602-1ab3-5663-8327-870c7f793f0a.html" }, { "name": "Navajo Nation", "position": "Negotiated directly with Energy Fuels over ore-transport routes across its land; voluntarily paused transport for months in 2024 pending discussions", "date": "2024-2025", "url": "https://fs.usda.gov/r03/kaibab/forest-products/nonwood-products/pinyon-plain-mine-formerly-canyon-uranium-mine" }, { "name": "Ute Mountain Ute Tribe", "position": "Opposes operations, citing proximity of the destination mill to their community", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://azdailysun.com/news/local/environment/havasupai-tribe-objects-to-aquifer-protection-permit-change-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_c996bad6-32f9-42a4-9045-c59fde6df017.amp.html" }, { "name": "Energy Fuels Resources", "position": "States mining, hauling, and processing pose no threat to communities or the environment", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://azdailysun.com/news/local/environment/havasupai-tribe-objects-to-aquifer-protection-permit-change-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_c996bad6-32f9-42a4-9045-c59fde6df017.amp.html" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1980s", "event": "Canyon Mine (later Pinyon Plain) first approved under a Plan of Operations." }, { "date": "1992", "event": "Mine halts operations as uranium price falls to $6.40/lb." }, { "date": "2012", "event": "Interior Secretary Salazar establishes a 20-year administrative mining ban near the Grand Canyon; Forest Service exempts the mine as a valid existing right." }, { "date": "2016", "event": "Miners pierce an aquifer during shaft construction; groundwater pumping begins." }, { "date": "2018", "event": "Mine shaft sinking completed to ~1,470 feet." }, { "date": "2020", "event": "USFS completes Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision under NEPA for the mine's Plan of Operations." }, { "date": "2023-08-08", "event": "Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument designated at tribal request; mine again grandfathered in." }, { "date": "2023-12", "event": "Energy Fuels begins active ore extraction." }, { "date": "2024-01-08", "event": "First ore removed to the surface." }, { "date": "2024-07-30", "event": "Energy Fuels voluntarily pauses ore transport after two shipments, pending Navajo Nation discussions." }, { "date": "2024-07-31", "event": "ADEQ issues the mine's Individual Aquifer Protection Program Permit." }, { "date": "2025-02-12", "event": "Ore hauling resumes following Navajo Nation discussions." }, { "date": "2026 (H1)", "event": "~1.6 million lbs U3O8 produced at White Mesa Mill; mill scheduled to pause Q3 2026." }, { "date": "2026-07", "event": "Havasupai Tribe formally objects to proposed arsenic-limit permit amendment." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "epa", "label": "Pinyon Plain Mine, Coconino County, AZ", "publisher": "U.S. EPA", "date": "2026-03-03", "url": "https://www.epa.gov/uic/pinyon-plain-mine", "supports": "EPA technical study findings, aquifer connectivity assessment, request origin" }, { "id": "arizona-environmental-quality", "label": "WQD | Permit of Interest | Pinyon Plain Mine", "publisher": "Arizona Department of Environmental Quality", "date": "2026-05-08", "url": "https://azdeq.gov/WQD/PinyonPlainMine", "supports": "Permit number, issuance date, regulatory framework, EIS/ROD reference" }, { "id": "forest-kaibab-forest", "label": "Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly Canyon Uranium Mine)", "publisher": "U.S. Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://fs.usda.gov/r03/kaibab/forest-products/nonwood-products/pinyon-plain-mine-formerly-canyon-uranium-mine", "supports": "Site size, shaft depth, operational timeline, monument-exemption status" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "navajo-hopi-observer", "label": "Uranium mining operations begin at Pinyon Plain Mine", "publisher": "Navajo-Hopi Observer", "date": "2024-04-17", "url": "https://www.nhonews.com/features/uranium-mining-operations-begin-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_9c73e602-1ab3-5663-8327-870c7f793f0a.html", "supports": "Monument designation context, litigation history" }, { "id": "grand-canyon-trust", "label": "Pinyon Plain Uranium Mine (formerly Canyon Mine) \u2014 story map", "publisher": "Grand Canyon Trust (ArcGIS StoryMaps)", "date": "2026-01-12", "url": "https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e5581098559f4c9884cd76185e840b22", "supports": "Full historical timeline, mining claims context, litigation history" }, { "id": "grand-canyon-trust-2", "label": "Grand Canyon Uranium Mine Water Problem Hits 80 Million Gallons", "publisher": "Grand Canyon Trust", "date": "2026-06-06", "url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/pinyon-plain-uranium-mine-80-million-gallons/", "supports": "Groundwater pumping volumes, arsenic permit dispute, 2024 groundwater study findings" }, { "id": "arizona-daily-sun", "label": "Havasupai Tribe objects to aquifer protection permit change at Pinyon Plain Mine", "publisher": "Arizona Daily Sun", "date": "2026-07-04", "url": "https://azdailysun.com/news/local/environment/havasupai-tribe-objects-to-aquifer-protection-permit-change-at-pinyon-plain-mine/article_c996bad6-32f9-42a4-9045-c59fde6df017.amp.html", "supports": "2026 permit dispute detail, ore hauling route/pause history, U3O8 production figures" }, { "id": "securities-exchange-commission", "label": "Energy Fuels Inc. \u2014 Form 10-K annual report (SEC EDGAR)", "publisher": "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission", "date": "2021-02", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385849/000138584921000027/efr-20201231.htm", "supports": "Corporate ownership and incorporation: Energy Fuels Inc. incorporated in Alberta on June 24 1987 and continued under the Ontario Business Corporations Act on September 2 2005, and the November 2020 renaming of the Canyon Mine to the Pinyon Plain Project" }, { "id": "associated-press", "label": "Arizona approves key environmental permit for uranium mine near Grand Canyon", "publisher": "Associated Press (retrieved via Yahoo News mirror)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-approves-key-environmental-permit-004941170.html", "supports": "Uranium market price history only, including the $6.40/lb 1992 shutdown price and the more recent ~$57/lb figure; corporate ownership and incorporation are cited to the SEC filing above. Wire copy on an aggregator mirror \u2014 replace with a stable Associated Press or member-outlet URL when one is available" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/pinyon-plain-uranium-mine-80-million-gallons/", "comment_deadline": "ADEQ's arsenic-limit permit amendment does not require formal public comment; the Havasupai Tribe and allies are urging public pressure regardless." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page initial publication).\n" }, { "site_name": "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument", "slug": "grand-staircase-escalante", "location": "Kane and Garfield Counties, southern Utah", "designation_type": "National Monument (reduced boundary as of July 2026)", "governing_agency": "Bureau of Land Management", "threat_category": "Monument boundary rollback / mining and drilling", "status": "Boundary cut \u2014 reopening to mining claims in progress", "coordinates": [ 37.5, -111.3 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "Monument cut from approximately 1.87 million to 181,541 acres on the same day as the Bears Ears cut.", "sections": { "history": "President Clinton designated Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument on September 18, 1996.\nProclamation 6920 states that the land reserved \"consist[s] of approximately 1.7 million acres,\"\nprotecting a geologically layered landscape of cliffs, plateaus, and canyons along with\nsignificant paleontological and archaeological resources.[[proc-6920]][[ugs-resources]] The\nmonument's extent was later described by the Bureau of Land Management as nearly 1.9 million\nacres, and it stood at approximately 1.87 million acres immediately before the 2026\nreduction.[[blm-25th]][[wh-proclamation]]\n", "current_threat": "On December 4, 2017, Proclamation 9682 reduced the monument to \"approximately 1,003,863 acres\"\nin three units \u2014 Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits, and Escalante Canyons \u2014 removing approximately\n861,974 acres.[[earthjustice-slash]] It stated that the boundaries set by Proclamation 6920 were \"greater than the\nsmallest area compatible with the protection of the objects,\" and reopened the excluded lands\nto public-land entry, mineral and geothermal leasing, and location and patent under the mining\nlaws 60 days after signing.[[proc-9682]] On October 8, 2021, Proclamation 10286 restored the\nmonument to approximately 1.87 million acres \u2014 the boundary as it stood on December 3, 2017 \u2014\nstating that the 2017 proclamation had excluded \"nearly half of the lands reserved in\nProclamation 6920,\" including portions of the Circle Cliffs and Waterpocket\nFold.[[proc-10286]] Utah and Garfield and Kane Counties sued to nullify the restoration; on\nAugust 11, 2023, the\nU.S. District Court for the District of Utah dismissed that challenge (No.\n4:22-cv-00059-DN-PK).[[garfield-justia]] On June 23, 2026, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part,\nand remanded the case, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar all review of the\nPresident's actions \u2014 returning to the district court the question of whether the designations\nexceeded the President's Antiquities Act authority. That challenge remains\nunresolved.[[garfield-10th-cir]][[eelp-remand]] On January 13, 2025, the BLM issued the Record\nof Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the monument. On January 15, 2026, the\nGovernment Accountability Office concluded that the plan \"meets [the Administrative Procedure\nAct's] definition of a rule\" and that no Congressional Review Act exception applied, making it\nsubject to the CRA's submission requirements and so open to a resolution of\ndisapproval.[[gao-b337705]] BLM had released the proposed plan and final environmental impact\nstatement on August 29, 2024, covering nearly 1.87 million acres, with Alternative C as the\nagency's preferred alternative and four management areas \u2014 front country, passage, outback and\nprimitive \u2014 governing visitation and allowable uses.[[blm-proposed-rmp]] Senator Mike Lee and\nRepresentative Celeste Maloy introduced that\nresolution as S.J.Res.109; the GAO opinion letter was printed in the Congressional Record on\nFebruary 25, 2026.[[sjres109]] The resolution's expedited fast-track privilege lapsed on June\n11, 2026 without a Senate vote, leaving it subject to the ordinary 60-vote\nthreshold.[[sjres109]] Separately, on July\n13, 2026 \u2014 the same day as the Bears Ears reduction \u2014 President Trump signed a proclamation\nmodifying Grand Staircase-Escalante. The proclamation describes the modified reservation as\n\"approximately 181,541 acres\" in two units \u2014 Canyons of the Escalante (approximately 172,641\nacres) and Kaiparowits Horizon (approximately 8,900 acres) \u2014 a reduction of approximately 1.69\nmillion acres from the approximately 1.87 million-acre monument that preceded\nit.[[fr-proclamation]][[wh-proclamation]] As with Bears Ears, excluded\nlands are slated to reopen to new mining claims and mineral leasing approximately 60 days after\nsigning, on September 11, 2026.[[fr-proclamation]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology:** The monument's defining feature is the Grand Staircase itself \u2014 a sequence of\nexposed geological terraces spanning roughly 260 million years of Earth history, ascending\nfrom the Grand Canyon to Bryce Canyon. Proclamation 6920 describes it as \"a vast geologic\nstairway, named the Grand Staircase by pioneering geologist Clarence Dutton, which rises 5,500\nfeet to the rim of Bryce Canyon in an unbroken sequence of great cliffs and plateaus,\" and\nrecords that the monument's sedimentary layers are \"relatively undeformed and unobscured by\nvegetation.\" The same document puts the Kaiparowits Plateau at about 1,600 square miles of\nsedimentary rock, and identifies the East Kaibab Monocline (the Cockscomb), the Circle Cliffs,\npart of the Waterpocket Fold, and the naturally burning coal seams of the Burning\nHills.[[proc-6920]] The proclamation states that including part of the Waterpocket Fold\n\"completes the protection of this geologic feature begun with the establishment of Capitol Reef\nNational Monument in 1938 (Proclamation No. 2246, 50 Stat. 1856),\" and records arches and\nnatural bridges including the 130-foot-high Escalante Natural Bridge, with a 100-foot span, and\nGrosvenor Arch, \"a rare double arch.\" It describes the region as \"the last place in the\ncontinental United States to be mapped.\"[[proc-6920]]\n\nThe Utah Geological Association's survey of the monument's geology divides it into three\ngeographical sections, west to east: the Grand Staircase, the Kaiparowits Basin, and the\nEscalante Canyons. Rock formations exposed across them \"range in age from Permian to Cretaceous\ncomprising more than 200 million years of Earth's history,\" dipping gently northward and\ndeformed by mostly north-south-trending faults, anticlines, synclines and monoclines. The\nstaircase itself begins at the top of the Kaibab uplift, which sits \"in the same stratigraphic\nposition as the highest bench of the Grand Canyon in Arizona,\" rising through the Chocolate\nCliffs to a final riser of Pink Cliffs \u2014 lower Tertiary limestones and marls \u2014 culminating in\nthe Paunsaugunt Plateau. The monument's oldest rocks, Permian units comprising the Hermit\nShale, Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation and Kaibab Limestone, are exposed at Buckskin\nGulch. The same survey records that the monument's known coal, oil and gas, and mineral\nresources are \"generally undeveloped because market areas are distant\" and because transport\nroutes are limited.[[doelling-2000]]\n\nAbout 68 percent of the monument lies in Kane County and 32 percent in Garfield County;\nconversely about 49 percent of Kane County and 18 percent of Garfield County lie within the\nmonument boundaries. Following designation, Congress passed the Utah Schools and Land Exchange\nAct, transferring 176,699 acres of state trust land and 24,000 acres of trust mineral interests\ninside the monument to the federal government, with Utah receiving federal land elsewhere,\nmineral royalties, and a one-time cash payment in exchange.[[doelling-2000]] The Kaiparowits coal field is high quality, extensive, and conducive to\nunderground mining. The monument overall holds low-to-moderate potential for oil and gas (one\nboundary-adjacent field has produced over 29 million barrels since 1964, but other drilling in\nthe vicinity has produced only dry holes) and low potential for most metals and industrial\nminerals.[[ugs-resources]]\n\n**Paleontological Resources:** The monument is one of the richest dinosaur-fossil regions in\nNorth America. The Bureau of Land Management states that 14 dinosaurs have been discovered in\nthe monument as new species.[[blm-25th]] Grand Canyon Trust puts the number found nowhere else\non Earth at at least 15.[[gct-dinosaurs]] Species formally described from monument rock units\nin the peer-reviewed literature include the tyrannosaurs Lythronax argestes, from the Wahweap\nFormation, and Teratophoneus curriei, from the Kaiparowits Formation;[[loewen-2013]] the horned\ndinosaurs Utahceratops gettyi and Kosmoceratops richardsoni;[[sampson-2010]] and the armored\nankylosaurid Akainacephalus johnsoni.[[wiersma-2018]][[natgeo-akainacephalus]] Finds\nalso include six crocodile species, 17 turtle species, fossilized dinosaur skin, and\nexceptionally preserved plant fossils with leaves intact. Proclamation 6920 records that\nfossils \"including marine and brackish water mollusks, turtles, crocodilians, lizards,\ndinosaurs, fishes, and mammals\" have been recovered from the Dakota, Tropic Shale and Wahweap\nFormations and from the Tibbet Canyon, Smoky Hollow and John Henry members of the Straight\nCliffs Formation; that within the monument these formations \"have produced the only evidence in\nour hemisphere of terrestrial vertebrate fauna, including mammals, of the Cenomanian-Santonian\nages\"; and that the sequence contains \"one of the best and most continuous records of Late\nCretaceous terrestrial life in the world.\" It also records petrified wood in the Circle Cliffs\nincluding \"large unbroken logs exceeding 30 feet in length.\"[[proc-6920]] The Kaiparowits\nFormation specifically\nrepresents a scientifically significant record of a vanished, one-fifth-of-Africa-sized\nlandmass called Laramidia. The Utah Geological Survey's 2001 paleontological survey, prepared\nfor the BLM, records \"more than 800 individual fossil localities\" then known within the\nmonument, in formations ranging in age from Permian to Cretaceous, and notes that \"almost all\nareas of the monument that were examined contain at least some fossil material.\" Its findings\nincluded the first fossils of any kind from the Entrada Sandstone in the monument \u2014 among them\na dinosaur tracksite \"containing more than 250 tracks of at least 30 individuals\" \u2014 and it\nstates that research on the monument's Cretaceous strata \"is still in its earliest\nstages.\"[[ugs-ss99]] An earlier UGS inventory, Circular 96, catalogued the monument's\npaleontological resources immediately after designation.[[ugs-c96]] Excavation is an active,\nongoing BLM/museum partnership program.[[blm-dinosaur]]\n\nThe 2001 survey records that \"twenty sedimentary geological formations are exposed in the\nmonument, and fossils are known from all but three of these formations,\" with Quaternary\nsediments also carrying potential for Pleistocene fossils. Its Table 2 lists taxa found during\nthat survey alone that were previously unknown from the monument, spanning fifteen formations \u2014\na sponge genus (Actinoceolia) from the Kaibab Limestone; ammonoids and nautiloids from the\nMoenkopi; plant and reptile-track material from the Chinle; theropod and other reptile\ntrackways from the Wingate, Moenave, Kayenta, Navajo and Entrada; bivalves and gastropods from\nthe Carmel; sauropod tracks, crocodilian teeth and possible termite-nest structures from the\nMorrison; angiosperm leaves and ammonoids from the Dakota; ammonoids from the Tropic Shale;\ndinosaur tracks from the Straight Cliffs; a ceratopsian dinosaur skull from the Wahweap; and\ncrayfish burrows from the Kaiparowits. The survey notes it only spot-surveyed formations,\nbecause \"a comprehensive survey of the monument would take many years and was beyond the scope\nof this project.\" Localities were rated against BLM sensitivity guidelines, with Class I\n(Critical) reserved for those producing type, very rare, or reference fossil\nmaterial.[[ugs-ss99]]\n\nOne locality documents both of the monument's resource types at once: the survey records the\nFlag Point dinosaur trackway in the Jurassic Kayenta Formation, and a rock art panel near it\ndepicting dinosaur tracks.[[ugs-ss99]]\n\nBy 2006 the Kaiparowits Basin Project reported to BLM's science symposium that its finds\n\"more than double the known diversity\" of dinosaurs from the Kaiparowits Formation, with\nseveral taxa represented by mostly complete skulls and postcrania \"as well as integumentary\nimpressions.\" Among them were three new ceratopsid (horned dinosaur) taxa from the middle unit\nof the formation \u2014 two long-frilled chasmosaurines and one short-frilled centrosaurine, all\nthen undescribed. Two of those were formally named Utahceratops gettyi and Kosmoceratops\nrichardsoni four years later.[[symposium-2006]][[sampson-2010]] The same report described\nhadrosaurids including one species of Parasaurolophus and two stratigraphically separated\nspecies of Gryposaurus, which it identified as \"one of the few examples of within-lineage\nfaunal turnover for the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Basin.\"[[symposium-2006]]\nExcluding these fossil beds from monument protection exposes deposits \u2014 including sites not yet\ndiscovered or excavated \u2014 to surface disturbance from mining or drilling before they can be\nstudied.\n\n**Habitat & Water:** Proclamation 6920 identifies the monument's biological resources among the\nobjects it was created to protect. It records a landscape \"spanning five life zones from\nlow-lying desert to coniferous forest, with scarce and scattered water sources,\" and places the\nblending of warm and cold desert floras, with a high number of endemic species, \"in the heart\nof perhaps the richest floristic region in the Intermountain West.\" It describes isolated\ncommunities \u2014 hanging gardens, tinajas, and rock crevice, canyon bottom and dunal pocket\ncommunities \u2014 that \"have provided refugia for many ancient plant species for millennia,\" and an\n\"extraordinary number of areas of relict vegetation, many of which have existed since the\nPleistocene,\" including the relict grasslands of No Mans Mesa and pinyon-juniper communities\n\"containing trees up to 1,400 years old.\" It records over 200 species of birds including bald\neagles and peregrine falcons; mountain lion, bear and desert bighorn sheep; and wildlife\nconcentrating around the Paria and Escalante Rivers and other riparian\ncorridors.[[proc-6920]]\n\nTwo of the proclamation's findings bear directly on surface disturbance. It states that \"most\nof the ecological communities contained in the monument have low resistance to, and slow\nrecovery from, disturbance,\" and that fragile cryptobiotic crusts \"play a critical role\nthroughout the monument, stabilizing the highly erodible desert soils and providing nutrients\nto plants.\" It also records an abundance of packrat middens providing \"insight into the\nvegetation and climate of the past 25,000 years.\"[[proc-6920]]\n\nThe 2025 approved management plan drew a mixed assessment from Western Watersheds Project,\nwhich recorded improvements on livestock management \u2014 retained grazing closures in the\nEscalante Canyons, limits on grazing in heavily degraded areas, permanent retirement of\nallotments where permits are voluntarily relinquished, rangeland health assessments on all\nallotments within two years, and closures where grazing conflicts with recreation at Lower Calf\nCreek Falls and Muley Twist canyon \u2014 while objecting to the plan's continued vegetation\ntreatments and permitted use of non-native seed, which it argues risk cheatgrass invasion and\ndestruction of biological soil crust that takes decades to recover.[[wwp-rmp-2025]] That last\nconcern bears on Proclamation 6920's own finding about the role of cryptobiotic crusts in\nstabilizing the monument's highly erodible soils.[[proc-6920]]\n\nSurvey work presented to BLM's 2006 science symposium quantified part of that biological\nrichness. An aquatic invertebrate survey recorded 151 genera in monument streams, against 42\ngenera reported by a comparable earlier study, and 109 invertebrate taxa across 42 tinajas \u2014\ncompared with 44 taxa from 460 tinajas surveyed in and adjacent to Capitol Reef National Park.\nThe authors noted that other studies of south-western tinajas and wetlands \"consistently have\nfound fewer taxa.\" The same proceedings include research on prey dynamics within Mexican\nspotted owl nest areas in the monument, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered\nSpecies Act.[[symposium-2006]]\n\nResearch on the watershed has continued through the reduction. The Escalante River Watershed\nPartnership's March 2025 symposium convened researchers from the USGS, the University of Utah,\nColorado State University, the BLM and the US Forest Service alongside Hopi, San Juan Southern\nPaiute and Santa Clara Pueblo representatives, across sessions on riparian recovery, wetlands\nmanagement, monsoon hydrology, fire ecology and biodiversity, and referenced a 50-year\nrepeat-photography record of the Escalante watershed.[[erwp-symposium-2025]]\n\nA habitat and species inventory and a water-resource assessment specific to the 2026 excluded\nlands \u2014 identifying which of these communities fall outside the retained 181,541 acres \u2014 is not\nyet documented in current sourcing. The proclamation states that it \"does not reserve water as\na matter of Federal law.\"[[proc-6920]]\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** Paleontologists and conservation groups have specifically noted that\nfossils not yet discovered \u2014 an unknown but potentially substantial share of the monument's\ntotal paleontological resource, given active discoveries continuing after 25+ years of\nfieldwork \u2014 are now at risk of being destroyed or lost to research before they are ever found,\na loss that is by definition unrecoverable and unquantifiable in\nadvance.[[sltrib-fossils]][[ugs-ss99]]\n", "impact_cultural": "Proclamation 6920 identifies cultural resources among the objects the monument was created to\nprotect. It records that archeological inventories \"show extensive use of places within the\nmonument by ancient Native American cultures,\" that the area \"was a contact point for the\nAnasazi and Fremont cultures\" (the proclamation's 1996 terminology; \"Ancestral Puebloan\" is now\nthe more common usage for the former), and that \"the cultural resources discovered so far in\nthe monument are outstanding in their variety of cultural affiliation, type and distribution.\"\nIt counts \"hundreds of recorded sites,\" including rock art panels, occupation sites, campsites\nand granaries, and states that many further undocumented sites of scientific and historic value\nexist within the monument.[[proc-6920]]\n\nThe proclamation also records continuing use by modern tribal groups including the Southern\nPaiute and Navajo; John Wesley Powell's 1872 expedition, which carried out initial mapping and\nscientific field work in the area; and Mormon pioneer resources including trails, inscriptions,\nghost towns such as the Old Paria townsite, rock houses, and cowboy line camps. Sixty miles of\nthe Hole-in-the-Rock Trail lie within the monument, as does Dance Hall Rock, which the\nproclamation identifies as a National Historic Site.[[proc-6920]]\n\nThe Utah Geological Survey's 1997 archaeological assessment of the monument records occupation\nby Archaic hunter-gatherers from roughly 9,000 to 2,500 years ago, with sites concentrated in\ncaves and rock shelters but including a substantial number of open sites, and fluted points\ncharacteristic of earlier Paleoindian occupation recovered from areas near the monument. That\nassessment also notes how little of the area has been inventoried: within the preceding decade\nit counted 456 cultural-resource management inventory projects in Garfield County and 287 in\nKane County, against 1,118 in San Juan County alone.[[ugs-c95]] The monument's archaeological\nrecord is therefore documented at a lower density than neighbouring areas, a point that bears\non what may lie unrecorded in the excluded lands.\n\nBLM's own decade review, presented to its 2006 science symposium, describes an active cultural\nresources programme rather than a static inventory. It records a Class I overview of the\nmonument's cultural resources (Spangler 2001), an archaeological survey of the Kaiparowits\nPlateau (Geib, Collette and Spurr 2001), and a complete archaeological inventory of the\nEscalante River canyon within the monument produced with Brigham Young University and Northern\nArizona University from 1999. It also records two commissioned tribal ethnographies \u2014 an\nethnographic assessment of Kaibab Paiute resources (Stoffle et al. 2001) and a Hopi ethnographic\noverview (Bernardini, then in press) \u2014 undertaken to support the monument's tribal consultation\nprogramme, with further ethnographies planned with other tribes. More than 200 oral histories\nhad been documented through the Utah Oral History Program, and ongoing studies included the\neffects of grazing-related activities on archaeological sites and rock art\nstabilisation.[[symposium-2006]]\n\nA resource assessment identifying which of these specific cultural sites fall inside the\n181,541 acres retained and which fall in the excluded lands is not yet documented in current\nsourcing. Southern Utah University's Grand Staircase-Escalante digital collection holds\narchival material on the monument for researchers seeking primary documents.[[suu-gsenm]]\n", "impact_economic": "The Kaiparowits Plateau within the monument holds an estimated coal reserve roughly twice the\nsize of the rest of Utah's known coal, per prior BLM/state geological assessment, but industry\nanalysts have noted the remote location, lack of rail/transport infrastructure, and coal's\ndeclining economic competitiveness make large-scale extraction commercially uncertain regardless\nof monument status. Historical analysis of the one pre-monument lease holder (Andalex) found\nthat even full development would have generated only about $36,000 annually in interest for\nUtah's public school trust fund, against a state education budget of $1.7 billion at the time \u2014\nundercutting claims that monument protection caused major state revenue loss. A current fiscal\nanalysis specific to the 2026 reduction is not yet documented. A 2026 Conservation in the West\npoll found 86% of Utah residents support keeping existing national monument designations for\npublic lands protected over the last decade in place.[[tws-gsenm]]\n", "impact_legal": "Proclamation 6920 was issued under section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16\nU.S.C. 431), the Antiquities Act, which the proclamation notes confines a monument's limits \"to\nthe smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be\nprotected.\" The 1996 proclamation asserts that the approximately 1.7 million acres it reserved\nwas that smallest compatible area. It withdrew all federal lands within the boundary \"from\nentry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws,\"\nsubject to valid existing rights, and provided that the monument would not affect Utah's\nmanagement of fish and wildlife, would not alter existing grazing permits or levels, and did\nnot reserve water as a matter of federal law.[[proc-6920]] Proclamation 9682 invoked that same\nlimitation in 2017, stating the 6920 boundaries were \"greater than the smallest area compatible\nwith the protection of the objects.\"[[proc-9682]]\n\nThe scope of that limitation is now before the courts. In Garfield County, Utah v. Trump, the\nTenth Circuit held on June 23, 2026 that when a President \"exceeds statutory limits placed on\nhis power, his actions are not those of the sovereign,\" but instead \"acts ultra vires and\nenjoys no immunity from suit,\" so that \"federal courts may review presidential acts alleged to\nexceed lawful authority.\" The panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further\nproceedings.[[garfield-10th-cir]][[eelp-remand]]\n\nTwo distinct lines of litigation run in opposite directions. The 2017 reduction was challenged\nin the District of Columbia by conservation plaintiffs in The Wilderness Society v. Trump, No.\n1:17-cv-02587 (TSC), consolidated with Grand Staircase Escalante Partners v. Trump, No.\n1:17-cv-02591, with the American Farm Bureau Federation among the defendant-intervenors; those\nplaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment in January 2020, arguing the Antiquities Act does\nnot authorise a President to dismantle an existing monument.[[tws-msj]] The Garfield County\ncase runs the other way: Utah and two counties challenging the 2021 restoration as exceeding\nthe same statute. The named appellants there are Garfield County and Kane County, the State of\nUtah, Governor Spencer J. Cox and Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, the BlueRibbon Coalition, and\nindividuals Zebediah George Dalton, Kyle Kimmerle and Suzette Ranea\nMorris.[[garfield-10th-cir]] Both turn on the scope of presidential authority under\nthe Antiquities Act. The Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and\nthe Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance appear as defendant-intervenors in the Garfield County\ncase, defending the designations.[[garfield-10th-cir]]\n\nResponding to the July 13, 2026 proclamations, more than 30 conservation and Tribal\norganizations \u2014 among them the Grand Staircase Inter-Tribal Coalition, the Bears Ears\nInter-Tribal Coalition and Utah Din\u00e9 Bik\u00e9yah \u2014 stated their opposition, and the Southern Utah\nWilderness Alliance stated: \"We will challenge this unlawful decision in federal court.\" The\nsame statement records the 2017 proclamations as having reduced Bears Ears by 87% and Grand\nStaircase-Escalante by 45%.[[cbd-2026-cuts]]\n\nThe Congressional Review Act fast-track resolution targeting the monument's 2025 resource\nmanagement plan lost its expedited privilege without a Senate vote on June 11,\n2026.[[sjres109]] Litigation\nhistory includes Utah's challenge to the Biden administration's 2021 restoration, dismissed by\nthe U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on August 11, 2023 and then revived on appeal:\non June 23, 2026 the Tenth Circuit vacated in part and remanded, leaving the question of the\nPresident's Antiquities Act authority open before the district\ncourt.[[garfield-10th-cir]][[eelp-remand]] Litigation history also includes a Society of\nVertebrate Paleontology lawsuit (filed December 2017, later\ncombined with environmental and tribal lawsuits) specifically over the earlier rollback's\nthreat to paleontological resources; that combined litigation was ongoing as of prior reporting.\nNew legal challenges to the July 2026 proclamation were anticipated but not yet filed as of this\npage's last verification.\n", "impact_health": "Not yet documented \u2014 no dedicated human-health impact study specific to the 2026 boundary\nreduction (as distinct from the pre-monument Andalex-era coal debate) was identified in current\nsourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "Not yet documented \u2014 a tribal or public consultation record specific to the July 13, 2026\nboundary reduction was not identified in current sourcing, distinct from the Society of\nVertebrate Paleontology's 2017 litigation over the earlier rollback.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Alton Coal Development, LLC", "role": "Existing/adjacent mine operator seeking expansion", "responsibility": "Operates the Coal Hollow surface mine adjacent to the monument in the Alton coalfield and has sought to expand mining operations bordering Bryce Canyon NP, Zion NP, and Grand Staircase-Escalante", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 specific expansion-project valuation not established in current sourcing", "url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/resources/alton-coal-proposed-mine-expansion-map/" }, { "name": "Andalex Resources Inc. (historical)", "role": "Prior coal lease holder, Kaiparowits Plateau (grandfathered into the original 1996 monument)", "responsibility": "Held the only viable pre-monument coal leases on the Kaiparowits Plateau; contemporary analysis found the company had planned to mine roughly $48 million worth of coal annually for 30 years", "value": "$48 million/year projected coal value (historical estimate); ~$624,000/year projected state revenue", "url": "https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/337422-leave-the-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument/" }, { "name": "Bureau of Land Management", "role": "Administering agency", "responsibility": "Manages the reduced monument and reopened lands; issued the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan on January 13, 2025", "value": "", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-releases-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument-proposed-management-plan" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe", "position": "Defendant-intervenors defending the monument designations in Garfield County, Utah v. Trump before the Tenth Circuit", "date": "2026-06-23", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/utahs-monument-challenge-10th-circuit-decision-6-23-06.pdf" }, { "name": "Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance", "position": "Defendant-intervenor in Garfield County, Utah v. Trump; stated after the July 2026 proclamations, \"We will challenge this unlawful decision in federal court\"", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-slashes-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments-for-second-time-2026-07-13/" }, { "name": "Grand Staircase Inter-Tribal Coalition (Autumn Gillard)", "position": "Among 30+ conservation and Tribal organizations opposing the July 13 2026 proclamations", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-slashes-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments-for-second-time-2026-07-13/" }, { "name": "Utah Din\u00e9 Bik\u00e9yah (Mark Maryboy)", "position": "Among the Tribal organizations opposing the July 13 2026 proclamations", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-slashes-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments-for-second-time-2026-07-13/" }, { "name": "Earthjustice", "position": "Successfully challenged the first Trump administration's 2017 cuts to Grand Staircase and Bears Ears", "date": "2026", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/brief/2026/trump-administration-moves-to-slash-national-monuments-by-nearly-3-million-acres" }, { "name": "Society of Vertebrate Paleontology", "position": "Sued over the 2017 rollback's threat to paleontological resources; case combined with other litigation", "date": "2017-12 (ongoing per prior reporting)", "url": "https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-akainacephalus-fossils-paleontology-grand-staircase-escalante" }, { "name": "The Wilderness Society", "position": "Opposes the reduction; cites Utah polling showing majority support for existing monument protections", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.wilderness.org/wild-places/utah/national-monuments-grand-staircase-escalante" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1996-09", "event": "President Clinton designates Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by Proclamation 6920, reserving approximately 1.7 million acres." }, { "date": "1999", "event": "Systematic dinosaur fossil discoveries begin picking up significantly in the monument." }, { "date": "2017-12", "event": "Proclamation 9682 (December 4) reduces the monument to approximately 1,003,863 acres in three units, removing approximately 861,974 acres; Society of Vertebrate Paleontology sues." }, { "date": "2021-10", "event": "Proclamation 10286 (October 8) restores the monument to approximately 1.87 million acres \u2014 the boundary as it stood on December 3, 2017." }, { "date": "2023-08-11", "event": "U.S. District Court for the District of Utah dismisses Utah's challenge to the Biden restoration (Garfield County v. Biden, No. 4:22-cv-00059-DN-PK)." }, { "date": "2026-06-23", "event": "Tenth Circuit affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands, holding that sovereign immunity does not bar all review of the President's Antiquities Act designations; the challenge returns to the district court unresolved (No. 23-4106)." }, { "date": "2025", "event": "BLM adopts a new resource management plan for the monument." }, { "date": "2026-01-15", "event": "GAO rules the 2025 RMP counts as a rule under the Congressional Review Act, opening a fast-track repeal window." }, { "date": "2026-06-11", "event": "The Senate's 60-day fast-track window on the CRA resolution expires without a vote." }, { "date": "2026-07-13", "event": "Trump signs proclamation cutting the monument to 181,541 acres, the same day as the Bears Ears reduction." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "fr-proclamation", "label": "Modifying the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (presidential proclamation, signed July 13 2026)", "publisher": "Federal Register", "date": "2026-07-17", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/17/2026-14549/modifying-the-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument", "supports": "181,541-acre modified boundary, Canyons of the Escalante and Kaiparowits Horizon units, 60-day effective date" }, { "id": "wh-proclamation", "label": "Modifying the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (presidential action)", "publisher": "The White House", "date": "2026-07", "url": "https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/07/modifying-the-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument/", "supports": "Stated rationale for the modification, proclamation text as issued" }, { "id": "proc-6920", "label": "Presidential Proclamation 6920 \u2014 Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 61 Fed. Reg. 50223", "publisher": "Office of the President (via Bureau of Land Management)", "date": "1996-09-18", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Grand%20Staircase-Escalante%20National%20Monument%20Presidential%20Proclamation%206920.pdf", "supports": "1996 designation date and the approximately 1.7 million acres reserved, quoted from the proclamation text" }, { "id": "proc-9682", "label": "Proclamation 9682 \u2014 Modifying the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (first reduction)", "publisher": "Office of the President (via The American Presidency Project)", "date": "2017-12-04", "url": "https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-9682-modifying-the-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument", "supports": "2017 reduction to approximately 1,003,863 acres in three units, approximately 861,974 acres removed, stated smallest-area rationale, 60-day reopening mechanism" }, { "id": "proc-10286", "label": "Proclamation 10286 \u2014 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (restoration)", "publisher": "Office of the President (via The American Presidency Project)", "date": "2021-10-08", "url": "https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-10286-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument", "supports": "2021 restoration to approximately 1.87 million acres, restoring the boundary as it stood on December 3, 2017" }, { "id": "garfield-10th-cir", "label": "Garfield County, Utah v. Trump, Nos. 23-4106 & 23-4107 (10th Cir., filed June 23 2026) \u2014 slip opinion, Carson, J., joined by Rossman and Federico, JJ.; on appeal from D. Utah No. 4:22-CV-00059-DN", "publisher": "United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit", "date": "2026-06-23", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/utahs-monument-challenge-10th-circuit-decision-6-23-06.pdf", "supports": "Disposition affirming in part, vacating in part and remanding; holding that a President acting beyond statutory limits acts ultra vires and enjoys no immunity from suit" }, { "id": "garfield-justia", "label": "Garfield County v. Biden, No. 23-4106 (10th Cir. 2026) \u2014 case record and docket history", "publisher": "Justia", "date": "2026-06-23", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/23-4106/23-4106-2026-06-23.html", "supports": "Docket history including the August 11 2023 district court dismissal under the original Garfield County v. Biden caption" }, { "id": "eelp-remand", "label": "Tenth Circuit Sends Monuments Case Back to District Court", "publisher": "Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program", "date": "2026", "url": "https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tenth-circuit-sends-monuments-case-back-to-district-court/", "supports": "Procedural posture of the remand: sovereign immunity, standing, and ripeness holdings" }, { "id": "blm-dinosaur", "label": "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument nets important dinosaur discovery", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2022-02-11", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/blog/2022-02-11/grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument-nets-important-dinosaur-discovery", "supports": "BLM paleontology program details, ongoing fossil discovery process" }, { "id": "gao-b337705", "label": "Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management \u2014 Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (B-337705)", "publisher": "U.S. Government Accountability Office", "date": "2026-01-15", "url": "https://www.gao.gov/products/b-337705", "supports": "Verified against the decision: BLM issued the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan on January 13 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 2741), having initiated the plan in July 2022, covering 1.87 million acres; GAO concluded the plan \"meets APA's definition of a rule, and that no CRA exception applies\", making it \"a rule subject to CRA's submission requirements\"" }, { "id": "sjres109", "label": "S.J.Res.109, 119th Congress \u2014 joint resolution of disapproval of the BLM rule relating to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan", "publisher": "United States Congress (Congress.gov)", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/109/text", "supports": "Text and sponsorship of the CRA disapproval resolution, and the GAO opinion letter of January 15 2026 as printed in the Congressional Record on February 25 2026" }, { "id": "ugs-ss99", "label": "Paleontological Survey of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Garfield and Kane Counties, Utah \u2014 Special Study 99", "publisher": "Utah Geological Survey (Foster, Titus, Winterfeld, Hayden & Hamblin), prepared for the Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2001", "url": "https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/special_studies/ss-99.pdf", "supports": "More than 800 known fossil localities; formations ranging Permian to Cretaceous; the Entrada Sandstone tracksite of more than 250 tracks from at least 30 individuals; and the survey's statement that research on these strata remains in its earliest stages" }, { "id": "ugs-c96", "label": "A Preliminary Inventory of Paleontological Resources Within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument \u2014 Circular 96", "publisher": "Utah Geological Survey (Gillette & Hayden)", "date": "1997", "url": "https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/circular/C-96.pdf", "supports": "The first post-designation inventory of the monument's paleontological resources and its bibliography of prior paleontological work" }, { "id": "doelling-2000", "label": "Geology of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah \u2014 in Geology of Utah's Parks and Monuments, Utah Geological Association Publication 28", "publisher": "Doelling, Blackett, Hamblin, Powell & Pollock (hosted by the Bureau of Land Management)", "date": "2000", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Geology%20of%20GSENM.pdf", "supports": "The monument's three geographical sections; exposed rocks ranging Permian to Cretaceous across more than 200 million years; the Grand Staircase riser sequence from the Chocolate Cliffs to the Pink Cliffs and Paunsaugunt Plateau; the oldest exposed Permian units at Buckskin Gulch; county distribution of monument acreage; and the Utah Schools and Land Exchange Act transfer of SITLA trust lands" }, { "id": "symposium-2006", "label": "Learning from the Land: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Science Symposium Proceedings 2006 (Southern Utah University, September 12-14 2006)", "publisher": "U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; produced by Grand Staircase-Escalante Partners", "date": "2006", "url": "https://www.npshistory.com/publications/blm/grand-staircase-escalante/science-symposium-2006.pdf", "supports": "560-page peer-presented proceedings of BLM's second monument science symposium, covering the Kaiparowits Basin Project's dinosaur findings, aquatic invertebrate biodiversity surveys, hydrology, pinyon-juniper ecology, and the first decade of the monument's cultural resources program" }, { "id": "ugs-c95", "label": "A Preliminary Assessment of Archaeological Resources Within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah \u2014 Circular 95", "publisher": "Utah Geological Survey (David B. Madsen)", "date": "1997", "url": "https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/circular/C-95.pdf", "supports": "Cultural sequence including Archaic occupation from roughly 9,000 to 2,500 years ago, and the comparatively small number of cultural-resource inventory projects recorded in Garfield and Kane Counties" }, { "id": "tws-msj", "label": "Memorandum in Support of TWS Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, The Wilderness Society v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-02587 (TSC) (D.D.C., filed Jan. 9 2020), consolidated with Grand Staircase Escalante Partners v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-02591", "publisher": "United States District Court for the District of Columbia (filing hosted by NRDC)", "date": "2020-01-09", "url": "https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tws_grand_staircase_msj_brief.pdf", "supports": "The consolidated 2017 challenge to Proclamation 9682, including plaintiffs' Antiquities Act arguments and the procedural history of that litigation" }, { "id": "ugs-resources", "label": "Resource Overview for the Original 1996 Grand Staircase\u2013Escalante National Monument", "publisher": "Utah Geological Survey", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/public_information/pi-103.pdf", "supports": "Coal, oil/gas, and mineral development-potential assessment" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "erwp-symposium-2025", "label": "Grand Staircase-Escalante Symposium 2025 \u2014 \"Ways of Understanding and Protecting Land and Water Resources in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Region\"", "publisher": "Escalante River Watershed Partnership", "date": "2025-03-20", "url": "https://escalanteriverwatershedpartnership.org/what-we-do/grand-staircase-escalante-symposium-2025/", "supports": "Continuing multi-agency and tribal research in the monument as of March 2025, with participants from USGS, the University of Utah, Colorado State University, BLM and the US Forest Service alongside Hopi, San Juan Southern Paiute and Santa Clara Pueblo representatives; session topics spanning riparian recovery, wetlands management, monsoon hydrology, fire ecology and biodiversity; and a referenced 50-year repeat-photography record of the Escalante watershed. Programme listing only \u2014 it reports no quantitative findings" }, { "id": "wwp-rmp-2025", "label": "New Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Land Use Plan Has Improvements on Livestock Management, but Extends Deforestation", "publisher": "Western Watersheds Project (advocacy organization)", "date": "2025-01-10", "url": "https://westernwatersheds.org/2025/01/new-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument-land-use-plan-has-improvements-on-livestock-management-but-extends-deforestation/", "supports": "Grazing provisions of the 2025 approved plan, including retained Escalante Canyons closures, voluntary allotment retirement, two-year rangeland health assessments, and the organization's stated objections to vegetation treatments and non-native seeding" }, { "id": "suu-gsenm", "label": "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument digital collection", "publisher": "Southern Utah University, Sherratt Library Special Collections", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://contentdm.li.suu.edu/digital/collection/GSENM/search/searchterm/Grand%20Staircase-Escalante%20National%20Monument%20(Utah)/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and", "supports": "Archival and primary-document holdings relating to the monument, offered as a research pointer rather than as support for a specific factual claim" }, { "id": "earthjustice-slash", "label": "Trump Administration Moves to Slash National Monuments by Nearly 3 Million Acres", "publisher": "Earthjustice (advocacy organization; party to the monument litigation)", "date": "2026", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/brief/2026/trump-administration-moves-to-slash-national-monuments-by-nearly-3-million-acres", "supports": "That the 2017 proclamation cut roughly half of the monument, and that Biden reversed it in 2021. This page carries no acreage figures, does not mention the 1996 designation, and does not discuss the 2023 or 2026 court rulings; those are cited to the proclamations and the Tenth Circuit opinion above." }, { "id": "cbd-2026-cuts", "label": "Trump Slashes Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments for Second Time", "publisher": "Center for Biological Diversity (advocacy organization)", "date": "2026-07-13", "url": "https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-slashes-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments-for-second-time-2026-07-13/", "supports": "Stated positions and litigation intentions of 30+ conservation and Tribal organizations responding to the July 13 2026 proclamations, including the Grand Staircase Inter-Tribal Coalition and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance" }, { "id": "blm-proposed-rmp", "label": "BLM Releases Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Proposed Management Plan", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2024-08-29", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-releases-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument-proposed-management-plan", "supports": "The proposed RMP/Final EIS covering nearly 1.87 million acres, Alternative C as BLM's preferred alternative, and the four management areas (front country, passage, outback, primitive)" }, { "id": "tws-gsenm", "label": "National Monuments: Grand Staircase-Escalante", "publisher": "The Wilderness Society", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.wilderness.org/wild-places/utah/national-monuments-grand-staircase-escalante", "supports": "2026 Utah polling figure, coal-deposit boundary framing" }, { "id": "gct-dinosaurs", "label": "Dinosaur Finds in Grand Staircase-Escalante", "publisher": "Grand Canyon Trust", "date": "2025-01-26", "url": "https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/dinosaur-finds-grand-staircase-escalante/", "supports": "Species diversity, fossil preservation quality" }, { "id": "blm-25th", "label": "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: 25th Anniversary", "publisher": "Bureau of Land Management", "date": "2021", "url": "https://www.blm.gov/national-conservation-lands/utah/gsenm-25-anniversary", "supports": "BLM's count of 14 dinosaurs discovered as new species within the monument" }, { "id": "loewen-2013", "label": "Tyrant Dinosaur Evolution Tracks the Rise and Fall of Late Cretaceous Oceans (original description of Lythronax argestes)", "publisher": "PLOS ONE (Loewen et al.)", "date": "2013-11-06", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079420", "supports": "Lythronax argestes from the Wahweap Formation (~80 Ma) and Teratophoneus curriei from the Kaiparowits Formation (~76 Ma)" }, { "id": "sampson-2010", "label": "New Horned Dinosaurs from Utah Provide Evidence for Intracontinental Dinosaur Endemism (original descriptions of Utahceratops and Kosmoceratops)", "publisher": "PLOS ONE (Sampson et al.)", "date": "2010", "url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929175/", "supports": "Utahceratops gettyi and Kosmoceratops richardsoni, and the endemism of the Kaiparowits fauna" }, { "id": "wiersma-2018", "label": "A new southern Laramidian ankylosaurid, Akainacephalus johnsoni gen. et sp. nov., from the upper Campanian Kaiparowits Formation of southern Utah, USA", "publisher": "PeerJ (Wiersma & Irmis)", "date": "2018", "url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063217/", "supports": "Akainacephalus johnsoni as a new ankylosaurid genus and species from the Kaiparowits Formation" }, { "id": "natgeo-akainacephalus", "label": "Spectacular Armored Dinosaur Found in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument", "publisher": "National Geographic", "date": "2022-01-26", "url": "https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-akainacephalus-fossils-paleontology-grand-staircase-escalante", "supports": "Society of Vertebrate Paleontology litigation" }, { "id": "sltrib-fossils", "label": "Yet-to-be-discovered dinosaur fossils may be at risk after Trump slashed the size of Grand Staircase", "publisher": "Salt Lake Tribune (AP)", "date": "2018-11-01", "url": "https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/11/01/yet-to-be-discovered/", "supports": "Undiscovered-fossil risk framing (applies structurally to the 2026 reduction)" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.wilderness.org/wild-places/utah", "comment_deadline": "No published federal comment deadline on record as of last verification; lands reopen to claims approximately September 2026." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "National Park Service \u2014 Nationwide Budget & Staffing Cuts", "slug": "nps-budget-staffing-cuts", "location": "Nationwide \u2014 affects all 430+ National Park Service units, including every other site tracked in this registry that NPS co-manages or that depends on NPS capacity", "designation_type": "Cross-cutting policy threat (not a single site) \u2014 federal agency funding and staffing levels", "governing_agency": "National Park Service / Department of the Interior / Congress (appropriations)", "threat_category": "Agency capacity \u2014 budget cuts and staff reductions", "status": "Active \u2014 proposed cuts partly rejected by Congress for FY26; FY27 proposal pending", "coordinates": [ 38.9, -77.0 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "NPS has lost 24% of its permanent staff since January 2025; a further $736M operations cut is proposed for FY27.", "sections": { "history": "The National Park Service's regular discretionary budget grew 11% in nominal dollars between\nFY2017 and FY2026, but fell 16% once adjusted for inflation, according to a Congressional\nResearch Service report. Staffing declined an estimated 18% over the same decade, while the\nagency's deferred-maintenance backlog nearly doubled.[[congressional-research]] A funding\nmechanism that had been partially offsetting these gaps expired at the end of\nFY2025.[[works-nature]]\n", "current_threat": "Executive Order 14210 (the DOGE workforce-optimization order, signed February 2025) drove a 16%\ndrop in NPS employee counts during FY2025 alone per Office of Personnel Management data cited\nin the CRS report;[[congressional-research]] NPS has lost roughly 4,000 permanent employees (24%\nof its permanent workforce) since January 2025, per National Parks Conservation Association\nreporting,[[coalition-to-protect]] including approximately 1,000 probationary employees\nterminated in a single day in February 2025, weeks before spring visitor season; those roles\nincluded wildland firefighting, search-and-rescue and visitor services.[[parks-traveler]] In\nMarch 2025 a federal district court ordered those probationary employees reinstated, holding\nthat the Office of Personnel Management lacked authority to direct the\nterminations.[[coalition-to-protect-2]] Separate reductions through the Deferred Resignation\nProgram, VERA and VSIP continued regardless, and account for much of the permanent-workforce\ndecline reported above.[[coalition-to-protect-3]] The administration's \"Big Beautiful Bill\"\nrescinded $267 million in previously committed NPS staffing funds that had been approved under\nthe Inflation Reduction Act.[[coalition-to-protect]][[works-nature]] The administration's May\n2025 budget proposal sought more than $1 billion in FY2026 cuts (a 30%+ drop), which NPCA\ncalculated could have required eliminating funding and staffing for roughly 350 park sites \u2014\nover 75% of the National Park System \u2014 and also proposed transferring some park sites to state\nownership; Congress rejected the most severe cuts and passed flat FY2026 funding of $2.88 billion\nfor park operations, per NPCA.[[parks-conservation-association-2]] The Congressional Research Service\nreports the wider FY2026 figure differently: an administration request of $2.116 billion in\ntotal discretionary appropriations against a FY2025 discretionary appropriation of $3.337\nbillion, with P.L. 119-74 (enacted January 23, 2026) providing $3.267 billion \u2014 2% below\nFY2025 and 54% above the request.[[congressional-research-2]] The two figures describe different\naccounts and are reported here as each source states them. On April 3, 2026, the\nadministration's FY2027 budget proposal sought a further $736 million cut (over 25%) to park\noperations specifically, which NPCA states would eliminate thousands more\nstaff;[[parks-conservation-association]] the FY2027 proposal also includes a 95% cut to the\nHistoric Preservation Fund. An April 2026 DOI memo separately announced restructuring NPS staff\ninto \"visitor-facing\" roles alongside new voluntary-departure incentive windows.[[outside]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Direct Environmental Effect:** Reduced staffing directly affects the agency's capacity to\nmonitor and protect the natural and cultural resources documented throughout every other case\nfile in this registry \u2014 biologists who track endangered species, resource specialists who\nmonitor water quality and invasive species, and historic-preservation staff who document\narchaeological and cultural sites are among the roles affected by the described\ncuts.[[center-progress]][[coalition-to-protect]]\n\n**Compounding Effect on Other Sites:** This threat is structurally different from the others\ntracked here: it does not target a specific landscape's protections directly, but reduces the\nfederal government's operational capacity to enforce, monitor, and respond to the site-specific\nthreats documented at Big Bend, Chaco, and every NPS-co-managed unit in this registry \u2014 for\nexample, fewer resource specialists available to assess archaeological sites ahead of Big Bend's\nborder-wall construction, or to monitor cultural sites at Chaco.\n", "impact_cultural": "The FY2027 budget proposal specifically includes a 95% cut to the Historic Preservation Fund,\nwhich NPCA states would gut support for communities and tribes seeking to protect historic and\ncultural resources nationwide \u2014 a direct, quantified cut to the exact funding mechanism most\nrelevant to the cultural-preservation concerns raised across every monument and historic-site\ncase file in this registry.\n", "impact_economic": "NPS's FY2026 budget was held flat at $2.88 billion after Congress rejected proposed cuts. The\nFY2027 proposal seeks a further $736 million operations cut. A broader Center for American\nProgress analysis found the administration's earlier 2026 budget proposal included a nearly $4\nbillion cut across national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands agencies\ncombined \u2014 a 35% decrease from 2024 funding \u2014 paired with a proposed 30% staffing reduction\nacross NPS, USFS, FWS, and BLM combined relative to 2024 levels. If fully enacted, the same\nanalysis found visitors-per-employee ratios would rise nearly 75% since 2011, meaning\nsubstantially reduced staff capacity per visitor even before accounting for specific\nresource-protection duties.\n", "impact_legal": "Congress rejected the administration's most severe FY2026 cut proposal in the final\nappropriations bill, funding NPS at flat FY2025-equivalent levels ($2.88 billion) rather than\nthe proposed ~$900 million (31%) operations cut. The FY2027 proposal remained pending as of this\npage's last verification, meaning the FY2026 outcome \u2014 public and congressional pushback\npartially reversing a severe proposed cut \u2014 is the most direct precedent for whether the FY2027\nproposal will also be scaled back.\n", "impact_health": "NPCA and other groups document reduced staffing has led to slower emergency response times at\nparks nationwide \u2014 a direct visitor and worker safety concern distinct from environmental or\ncultural impacts, though a dedicated quantified health-outcomes study was not identified in\ncurrent sourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "Not applicable in the traditional tribal-consultation sense (this is an agency budget/staffing\naction, not a land-designation or leasing action); however, NPCA specifically credits public\nengagement \u2014 \"thousands of calls, sent emails and raised their voices\" \u2014 with the FY2026 outcome\nin which Congress rejected the most severe proposed cuts, indicating public comment functioned\nas an effective check in this specific case, unlike the compressed consultation windows\ndocumented at several site-specific case files in this registry.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Congress (House and Senate Appropriations Committees)", "role": "Funding decision-maker", "responsibility": "Ultimately sets NPS's actual appropriated budget; rejected the administration's most severe FY2026 cut proposal", "value": "FY2026: $2.88 billion (flat funding, rejecting a proposed ~$900M/31% cut); FY2027 proposal pending at $736M/25%+ operations cut", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11293-inside-the-fy26-national-park-service-budget" }, { "name": "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) / Executive Order 14210", "role": "Workforce-reduction driver", "responsibility": "Directed the workforce-optimization initiative that drove a 16% NPS staffing drop in FY2025 alone", "value": "", "url": "https://legis1.com/news/national-park-service-budget-squeezed-despite" }, { "name": "Department of the Interior", "role": "Administering department", "responsibility": "Issued the April 2026 memo restructuring NPS staff into 'visitor-facing' roles; offering deferred-resignation and early-retirement programs", "value": "", "url": "https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/nps-layoffs-visitor-facing-realignment-2027-budget/" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)", "position": "Opposes the cuts; organized public pressure campaigns and public advocacy events", "date": "2026-04-03", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11371-president-s-budget-proposal-slashes-national-park-service-funding-amid" }, { "name": "Coalition to Protect America's National Parks", "position": "Opposes the cuts, documenting operational strain on remaining staff", "date": "2025-08-11", "url": "https://protectnps.org/2025/08/11/americas-national-parks-at-breaking-point-as-staff-cuts-budget-slashes-threaten-safety-and-preservation/" }, { "name": "Sierra Club (Outdoors For All campaign)", "position": "Opposes the staff 'realignment,' characterizing it as layoffs presented as reform", "date": "2026-04-09", "url": "https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/nps-layoffs-visitor-facing-realignment-2027-budget/" }, { "name": "Congress (in the final FY2026 appropriations bill)", "position": "Rejected the administration's most severe proposed cuts, funding NPS at flat levels", "date": "2026 (FY2026 enacted)", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11293-inside-the-fy26-national-park-service-budget" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "2017-2026", "event": "NPS budget grows 11% nominally but falls 16% inflation-adjusted over the decade; staffing declines an estimated 18%; deferred maintenance backlog nearly doubles." }, { "date": "2025-02", "event": "Executive Order 14210 (DOGE workforce optimization) signed; approximately 1,000 probationary NPS employees terminated in a single day shortly after." }, { "date": "2025 (FY2025)", "event": "NPS employee count drops 16% for the fiscal year per OPM data; 'Big Beautiful Bill' rescinds $267 million in committed NPS staffing funds." }, { "date": "2025-05", "event": "Administration proposes over $1 billion (30%+) in FY2026 NPS cuts and state-transfer of some park sites." }, { "date": "2026 (FY2026 enacted)", "event": "Congress rejects the most severe cuts; NPS funded at flat $2.88 billion." }, { "date": "2026-04-03", "event": "Administration's FY2027 budget proposal seeks a further $736 million (25%+) operations cut and a 95% Historic Preservation Fund cut." }, { "date": "2026-04 (early April)", "event": "DOI memo announces NPS workforce realignment into 'visitor-facing' roles plus new voluntary-departure incentive windows." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "congressional-research", "label": "National Park Service (NPS) Appropriations: Ten-Year Trends (CRS Report R42757)", "publisher": "Congressional Research Service", "date": "2026-07-06", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42757", "supports": "Verified against the report: regular discretionary appropriations totalling $2.932 billion in FY2017 and $3.267 billion in FY2026, the FY2026 figure being \"11% higher than FY2017 in nominal dollars but 16% lower when adjusted for inflation\"; and full-time equivalent staffing that \"declined by an estimated 18% over the decade, owing especially to an estimated staffing decline for FY2026\". Also records 19 new park units added and the multibillion-dollar deferred maintenance backlog" }, { "id": "congressional-research-2", "label": "National Park Service: FY2026 Appropriations (CRS In Focus IF13116)", "publisher": "Congressional Research Service", "date": "2026-02-27", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13116", "supports": "Verified against the report: an FY2026 request of $2.116 billion, 37% below the FY2025 discretionary appropriation of $3.337 billion enacted in P.L. 119-4; and P.L. 119-74, enacted January 23 2026, containing $3.267 billion for NPS in Division C \u2014 2% less than the FY2025 regular appropriation and 54% more than the request. Also records the appropriations lapse from October 1 to November 12 2025 and the subsequent continuing resolution (P.L. 119-37)" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "parks-conservation-association", "label": "President's Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks", "publisher": "National Parks Conservation Association (advocacy organization)", "date": "2026-04-03", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11371-president-s-budget-proposal-slashes-national-park-service-funding-amid", "supports": "FY2027 $736M/25%+ cut figure, staffing impact statement" }, { "id": "parks-conservation-association-2", "label": "Inside the FY26 National Park Service Budget", "publisher": "National Parks Conservation Association (advocacy organization)", "date": "2026-02-02", "url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11293-inside-the-fy26-national-park-service-budget", "supports": "FY2026 $2.88B flat-funding outcome for the operations account, rejected $900M/31% proposal, 350-site elimination calculation" }, { "id": "center-progress", "label": "The Trump Administration Is Recklessly Axing Funding and Staff for America's National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands", "publisher": "Center for American Progress", "date": "2025-07-01", "url": "https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-is-recklessly-axing-funding-and-staff-for-americas-national-parks-forests-and-public-lands/", "supports": "Cross-agency $4B/35% cut figure, 30% cross-agency staffing reduction, visitors-per-employee ratio finding" }, { "id": "outside", "label": "$736M Budget Cut Could Gut National Park Service Workforce", "publisher": "Outside", "date": "2026-04-09", "url": "https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/nps-layoffs-visitor-facing-realignment-2027-budget/", "supports": "Visitor-facing realignment memo detail, Historic Preservation Fund cut, Sierra Club opposition" }, { "id": "coalition-to-protect", "label": "America's National Parks at Breaking Point as Staff Cuts, Budget Slashes Threaten Safety and Preservation", "publisher": "Coalition to Protect America's National Parks", "date": "2025-08-11", "url": "https://protectnps.org/2025/08/11/americas-national-parks-at-breaking-point-as-staff-cuts-budget-slashes-threaten-safety-and-preservation/", "supports": "24%/4,000-employee loss figure, $267M/$176M funding-cut figures, emergency-response slowdown" }, { "id": "works-nature", "label": "National Park Service - Budget and Staff Cuts - Issue Tracker & Action Guide", "publisher": "Works For Nature", "date": "2025-08-27", "url": "https://worksfornature.org/nature-in-need/national-park-service-budget-and-staff-cuts", "supports": "Seasonal hiring shortfall figures, IRA-funding rescission detail" }, { "id": "parks-traveler", "label": "How The National Park Service Fired 1,000 Workers", "publisher": "National Parks Traveler", "date": "2025-02", "url": "https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2025/02/how-national-park-service-fired-1000-workers", "supports": "The February 2025 termination of approximately 1,000 probationary employees, the wording of the termination notices, and the roles affected including wildland firefighting and search-and-rescue" }, { "id": "coalition-to-protect-2", "label": "Federal Court Orders Reinstatement of Fired Probationary Federal Employees", "publisher": "Coalition to Protect America's National Parks", "date": "2025-03-13", "url": "https://protectnps.org/2025/03/13/federal-court-orders-reinstatement-of-fired-probationary-federal-employees/", "supports": "The March 2025 district court order directing reinstatement of the terminated probationary employees on the ground that OPM lacked authority to direct the terminations" }, { "id": "coalition-to-protect-3", "label": "Reinstatement of Probationary Employees is Welcome News, but Grave Concerns Linger", "publisher": "Coalition to Protect America's National Parks", "date": "2025-03-20", "url": "https://protectnps.org/2025/03/20/reinstatement-of-probationary-employees-is-welcome-news-but-grave-concerns-linger/", "supports": "Status of the reinstatement and the separate workforce reductions continuing through deferred resignation, VERA and VSIP" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://www.npca.org/articles/11371-president-s-budget-proposal-slashes-national-park-service-funding-amid", "comment_deadline": "FY2027 budget and appropriations process was ongoing in Congress as of this page's last verification; no single public comment deadline applies to a budget bill." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page initial publication).\n" }, { "site_name": "Pacific Marine National Monuments (Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea, Pacific Islands Heritage, Mariana Trench, Rose Atoll)", "slug": "pacific-marine-monuments", "location": "Central and Western Pacific Ocean (Hawaii, Mariana Islands, American Samoa region)", "designation_type": "Marine National Monuments", "governing_agency": "NOAA / National Marine Fisheries Service; Department of the Interior", "threat_category": "Commercial fishing access opened within protected monument waters", "status": "Active \u2014 proclamations signed, regulatory rulemaking and litigation ongoing", "coordinates": [ 25.0, -171.0 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "Two 2026 proclamations opened portions of four Pacific marine monuments to commercial fishing; litigation ongoing.", "sections": { "history": "The Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument (formerly the Pacific Remote Islands\nMarine National Monument) was first established by President George W. Bush in 2009 and covers\nnearly 500,000 square miles of ocean. Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea Marine National Monument, in the\nNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands, is the largest contiguous fully protected conservation area\nunder the U.S. flag; its marine portions were designated the nation's 18th marine sanctuary in\nBiden's final days in office.[[shark-stewards]][[mongabay]] The Mariana Trench and Rose Atoll\nMarine National Monuments were also established under the Antiquities Act. Together, these four\nmonuments were designed to protect coral atolls, deep-sea trenches, and remote islands, and\nhabitat for numerous threatened and endangered\nspecies.[[mongabay]][[harvard-environmental-energy]]\n", "current_threat": "On April 17, 2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10918, opening the Pacific Islands\nHeritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing and directing the Secretaries of\nCommerce and the Interior to review other marine monuments for the same\npurpose.[[noaa]][[congressional-research]] On June 11, 2026, he signed a second proclamation\n(PP 11035), \"Restoring American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific,\" opening additional areas:\nthe Islands Unit of the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument, the Mau Zone and Ho'omalu Zone\nplus waters seaward of 50 nautical miles within Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea, and waters between 12 and 50\nnautical miles around Rose Atoll \u2014 together covering roughly 690,000 square\nmiles.[[hawaii-news-now]][[environment-coastal-offshore]] Separately, in February 2026,\nProclamation 11009 opened the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in the\nAtlantic to commercial fishing.[[harvard-environmental-energy]] As of late June 2026, commercial\nfishing remained formally prohibited within the Pacific Islands Heritage monument under existing\nNOAA/NMFS regulations pending agency rulemaking, per the Congressional Research\nService.[[congressional-research]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology/Ocean Features:** These monuments protect coral atolls, seamounts, and \u2014 in the case\nof the Mariana Trench monument \u2014 the deepest points in the world's ocean, along with associated\ndeep-sea ecosystems that are poorly studied relative to shallower waters.\n\n**Habitat & Endangered Species:** Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea and the Pacific Islands Heritage monument\nsustain species including corals, reef sharks, sea turtles (green and hawksbill), giant clams,\ngroupers, humphead and Napoleon wrasses, bumphead parrotfish, dolphins, and whales, along with\nnumerous threatened, endangered, and depleted species.[[shark-stewards]][[earthjustice]]\n\n**Fisheries/Ecological Function:** Conservation groups argue these protected \"safe haven\" areas\nfunction as fish population reservoirs that help replenish and sustain surrounding commercial\nfisheries \u2014 specifically citing that U.S.-based tuna fleets otherwise hit their annual catch\nlimits without the reproductive buffer these no-fishing zones provide.[[earthjustice]] Opening\nthese areas to commercial harvest risks undermining that buffering function over time, a\nsystemic (basin-wide, multi-year) effect rather than a localized one.[[earthjustice]]\n", "impact_cultural": "Not yet documented \u2014 awaiting a specific cited assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian or\nPacific Islander cultural or subsistence practices tied to these waters.\n", "impact_economic": "President Trump stated the June 2026 proclamation would \"support millions of dollars in annual\nharvest\" without citing a specific total figure in available primary sourcing. No independent,\ncited third-party economic analysis quantifying total projected harvest value, job creation, or\noffsetting cost to protected-species recovery programs was identified for this specific\nproclamation as of this page's last verification. Conservation groups argue the unquantified\neconomic case must be weighed against the documented ecological \"safe haven\" effects described\nabove.\n", "impact_legal": "A federal district court in Hawaii vacated an April 2025 NMFS letter that had declared the\nPacific Islands Heritage monument open to fishing, ruling it violated the Administrative\nProcedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements (K\u0101pa\u02bba v.\nTrump).[[harvard-environmental-energy]][[congressional-research]] Earthjustice, representing\nK\u0101pa\u02bba, the Conservation Council for Hawaii, and the Center for Biological Diversity, filed that\nsuit in May 2025 challenging Proclamation 10918's legal authority under the Antiquities Act, and\nhas stated it will pursue further litigation over the June 2026\nproclamation.[[earthjustice]] The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has\npressed for restored commercial access, citing the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the governing\nframework for fisheries management in these waters.[[seafoodsource]][[environment-coastal-offshore]]\n", "impact_health": "Not applicable in the direct sense (this is a fishing-access policy change, not a construction\nor extraction project); no dedicated human-health impact study was identified as relevant to\nthis specific action.\n", "consultation_status": "Not yet documented \u2014 a Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander community consultation record\nspecific to the June 2026 proclamation was not identified in current sourcing. The since-vacated\nApril 2025 NMFS letter was specifically found by a federal court to have violated\nAdministrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment requirements, indicating a documented process\nfailure for the earlier, related action.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC)", "role": "Federal fishery management body advocating for and administering the fishing reopening", "responsibility": "Directed staff to analyze regulations and submit recommendations for restoring commercial fishing access; represents Hawaii-based and American Samoa-based commercial fishing fleet interests", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 no specific company or vessel-fleet dollar figures identified in current sourcing", "url": "https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/wprfmc-continues-push-to-restore-commercial-fishing-access-in-marine-monuments" }, { "name": "NOAA / National Marine Fisheries Service", "role": "Administering and rulemaking agency", "responsibility": "Implements the proclamations through agency rulemaking; issued the since-vacated April 2025 letter declaring the monument open to fishing", "value": "", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13090" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Earthjustice, representing K\u0101pa\u02bba, Conservation Council for Hawaii, Center for Biological Diversity", "position": "Litigating against the fishing-access proclamations under the Antiquities Act and APA", "date": "2026-06-15", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administration-continues-attacks-on-pristine-pacific-marine-monuments" }, { "name": "Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council", "position": "Supports reopening the monuments to commercial fishing", "date": "2026-03-30", "url": "https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/wprfmc-continues-push-to-restore-commercial-fishing-access-in-marine-monuments" }, { "name": "NOAA / Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick", "position": "Supports the proclamation, citing economic opportunity for commercial fishermen", "date": "2026-06-11", "url": "https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/executive-proclamation-restores-commercial-fishing-in-pacific-marine-monuments-unlocks-economic" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "2009", "event": "Pacific Islands Heritage (then Pacific Remote Islands) Marine National Monument established by President George W. Bush." }, { "date": "2025-01", "event": "Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea marine portions designated the nation's 18th marine sanctuary under Biden." }, { "date": "2025-04-17", "event": "Trump signs Proclamation 10918 opening Pacific Islands Heritage monument to commercial fishing." }, { "date": "2025-05-22", "event": "Earthjustice files K\u0101pa\u02bba v. Trump challenging Proclamation 10918." }, { "date": "2025-08", "event": "Hawaii federal court vacates NMFS letter implementing the fishing opening." }, { "date": "2026-02-06", "event": "Trump signs Proclamation 11009 opening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts monument (Atlantic) to fishing." }, { "date": "2026-06-11", "event": "Trump signs Proclamation 11035 opening portions of Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea, Mariana Trench, and Rose Atoll monuments to commercial fishing." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "congressional-research", "label": "The Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument: Commercial Fishing Interests and Considerations for Congress", "publisher": "Congressional Research Service (Congress.gov)", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13090", "supports": "Proclamation numbers, litigation status, current regulatory status" }, { "id": "noaa", "label": "Executive Proclamation restores commercial fishing in Pacific marine monuments", "publisher": "NOAA", "date": "2026-06-11", "url": "https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/executive-proclamation-restores-commercial-fishing-in-pacific-marine-monuments-unlocks-economic", "supports": "Proclamation scope, official rationale" }, { "id": "harvard-environmental-energy", "label": "Marine National Monuments & Marine Sanctuaries tracker", "publisher": "Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program", "date": "2026-05", "url": "https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/marine-national-monuments-and-marine-sanctuaries/", "supports": "Full litigation and proclamation timeline" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "hawaii-news-now", "label": "Trump signs proclamation to open marine monuments to commercial fishing", "publisher": "Hawaii News Now", "date": "2026-06-11", "url": "https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2026/06/12/trump-signs-proclamation-open-marine-monuments-commercial-fishing/?outputType=amp", "supports": "Specific zones opened, official statements" }, { "id": "environment-coastal-offshore", "label": "Pacific Marine Monuments Open to Commercial Fishing", "publisher": "Environment Coastal & Offshore", "date": "2026-06-12", "url": "https://ecomagazine.com/news/policy/pacific-marine-monuments-open-to-commercial-fishing", "supports": "Zone list, stated legal basis (Magnuson-Stevens Act)" }, { "id": "mongabay", "label": "US moves to allow commercial fishing in Pacific marine protected areas", "publisher": "Mongabay", "date": "2026-06-22", "url": "https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/2026/06/us-moves-to-allow-commercial-fishing-in-pacific-marine-protected-areas/", "supports": "Total area figures, monument history" }, { "id": "earthjustice", "label": "Trump Administration Continues Attacks on Pristine Pacific Marine Monuments", "publisher": "Earthjustice", "date": "2026-06-15", "url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administration-continues-attacks-on-pristine-pacific-marine-monuments", "supports": "Litigation history, ecological rationale for protection" }, { "id": "seafoodsource", "label": "WPRFMC continues push to restore commercial fishing access in marine monuments", "publisher": "SeafoodSource", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/wprfmc-continues-push-to-restore-commercial-fishing-access-in-marine-monuments", "supports": "Council position and quoted rationale" }, { "id": "shark-stewards", "label": "Defend Pacific Marine National Monuments From Commercial Fishing", "publisher": "Shark Stewards", "date": "2026-04-03", "url": "https://sharkstewards.org/defending-the-pacific-islands-heritage-marine-national-monument/", "supports": "Species list, Papah\u0101naumoku\u0101kea designation details" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://earthjustice.org/press/2026/trump-administration-continues-attacks-on-pristine-pacific-marine-monuments", "comment_deadline": "NOAA/NMFS rulemaking to implement the June 2026 proclamation was ongoing as of last verification; no published public comment deadline on record." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page last substantially expanded).\n" }, { "site_name": "Red Desert / Rock Springs Resource Management Plan", "slug": "red-desert-rock-springs", "location": "Southwest Wyoming (BLM Rock Springs Field Office), including the Red Desert, Golden Triangle, and Greater Little Mountain", "designation_type": "BLM-managed public land under Resource Management Plan revision (not a formally designated monument/park)", "governing_agency": "Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office", "threat_category": "Resource Management Plan rollback \u2014 oil, gas, and mineral access expansion", "status": "Active \u2014 plan amendment in progress, comment period closed", "coordinates": [ 41.7, -108.5 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "A finalized 2024 conservation-oriented land plan for 3.6 million acres is being unwound just 9 months after completion.", "sections": { "history": "The Red Desert, part of Wyoming's Great Divide Basin, is often described as the largest\nunfenced area in the Lower 48 and contains the largest living dune field in North America. The\nRock Springs Field Office's management plan governs 3.6 million acres of BLM land in\nsouthwestern Wyoming; the prior plan dated to 1997. A rewrite process began in 2011, spanning\nover a decade of inventories, public outreach, and stakeholder meetings \u2014 including litigation\nover wild horse management and a separate sage-grouse habitat planning process that further\nslowed completion.[[wyoming-tribune-eagle-3]] A draft plan and EIS were released in August 2024,\nopening a 90-day comment period later extended by an additional 90 days at the request of\nWyoming's governor. The plan was finalized in December 2024, incorporating input from a\ngovernor's task force that included local government, oil and gas, mining, and grazing\nrepresentatives, and reflected nearly all of that task force's\nrecommendations.[[wyofile]][[wyoming-tribune-eagle]] The final plan protected areas including\nGreater Little Mountain, the Northern Red Desert, and the Golden Triangle via \"areas of critical\nenvironmental concern\" designations and blocked roughly 1.1 million acres from new\nindustrial-scale development through rights-of-way exclusion areas, while still allowing\ncontinued mineral development across more than two-thirds of the total planning\narea.[[wyoming-tribune-eagle]]\n", "current_threat": "Despite the plan's recency, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, under a Trump administration\ndirective, granted authority in February 2025 to review and revise resource management plans\nnationwide, specifically naming the Rock Springs plan and Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide\nPlanning.[[gillette-news-record]] In October 2025, the BLM formally announced intent to amend\nthe finalized Rock Springs plan to expand access for fossil fuel extraction \u2014 an unusually fast\nreversal, described by a Wyoming Outdoor Council program director as rare for an agency to\nrevise an approved Record of Decision meant to last 15-20 years within just nine\nmonths.[[wyoming-public-media]][[wyoming-wildlife-federation]] A 30-day scoping comment period\nwas announced via Federal Register notice, later extended 45 days to December 18, 2025,\ncontinuing despite a concurrent federal government\nshutdown.[[rawlins-times]][[wyoming-tribune-eagle-2]][[wyoming-public-media]] The process is still in its early\n\"scoping\" stage; the next step is a formal environmental assessment.\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Land:** The Red Desert/Great Divide Basin includes extensive sagebrush-steppe,\nvolcanic buttes with springs, badlands, and the continent's largest living dune field \u2014\nlandscape features the finalized 2024 plan specifically protected via \"areas of critical\nenvironmental concern.\"[[wyoming-wilderness-association]][[wyoming-tribune-eagle]]\n\n**Climate:** The region's sagebrush-steppe habitat is documented as already climate-stressed,\nmeaning additional development pressure compounds an existing vulnerability rather than acting\nindependently of it.\n\n**Habitat & Endangered/Sensitive Species:** The area supports the greater sage-grouse (a\nspecies of conservation concern and a keystone species for the sagebrush ecosystem), along with\npronghorn (including the world's largest pronghorn herd, per one conservation group's\ndescription), mule deer, and elk, whose winter range and migration corridors the 2024 plan\nspecifically protected through development closures.[[wyoming-outdoor-council]]\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** A Wyoming Outdoor Council representative specifically noted that\nrevising a 15-20-year land-use plan within 9 months undermines the durability that such plans\nare designed to provide,[[wyoming-public-media]][[wyoming-outdoor-council]] creating a pattern\nwhere conservation gains achieved through\nmulti-year, multi-stakeholder processes can be reversed administratively far faster than they\nwere built \u2014 a structural risk to any future durable land-management compromise, not just this\nspecific plan.\n", "impact_cultural": "The Red Desert is documented as culturally significant and vital for sustaining Indigenous\ntraditional ecological knowledge, per the Wyoming Outdoor Council's public materials; a more\nspecific, named-tribe consultation record was not identified in current sourcing.\n", "impact_economic": "Wyoming's outdoor recreation economy is valued at $1.5 billion statewide, which the finalized\n2024 plan was credited with supporting alongside continued mineral development and grazing\naccess.[[wyofile]] Even under the 2024 plan's protections, approximately 75% of the\n3.6-million-acre planning area remains already leased or technically available for energy\ndevelopment, according to a Wilderness Society report \u2014 meaning the amendment targets a\nrelatively small remaining protected share (roughly 25%) rather than the whole planning\narea.[[wyoming-tribune-eagle]] Separately, 92% of all BLM land in Wyoming statewide is already\nopen to oil and gas leasing, a figure cited by plan supporters (WyoFile op-ed) to argue the\nfinalized plan was not, in fact, unusually restrictive.[[wyofile]]\nThe Petroleum Association of Wyoming has stated it welcomes the amendment process, citing the\n2024 plan as having \"locked away\" acreage from \"productive uses.\"\n", "impact_legal": "No litigation specific to the 2025-2026 plan amendment was identified as filed in current\nsourcing; the process remains in early administrative scoping/comment stages rather than formal\nagency decision stages that would typically trigger legal challenge.\n", "impact_health": "Not yet documented \u2014 no dedicated human-health impact study specific to this plan amendment\nwas identified in current sourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "The finalized 2024 plan followed an unusually extensive public process: begun in 2011, spanning\n13 years, including a governor's task force with local government, industry, and grazing\nrepresentation, and a comment period extended at the governor's own request. By contrast, the\n2025-2026 amendment process began with just a 30-day scoping comment window (later extended 45\ndays to December 18, 2025) and proceeded through a federal government shutdown, which a Wyoming\nOutdoor Council program director specifically flagged as creating uncertainty about whether\nBLM would have adequate staff to fully review submitted public comments.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "Petroleum Association of Wyoming", "role": "Industry trade association supporting the plan amendment", "responsibility": "Publicly welcomed the BLM's decision to amend the 2024 plan; specific member companies not yet named in current sourcing", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 specific company-level lease values or bid amounts not identified in current sourcing", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/feds-to-redo-management-plan-for-3-6m-acres-in-southwest-wyoming/article_e6cba8d3-6b7c-4598-bad9-8ede9e1864dc.html" }, { "name": "Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office", "role": "Administering agency", "responsibility": "Manages the 3.6-million-acre planning area; conducting the current plan-amendment process", "value": "", "url": "https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2025-10-06/government-shutdown-muddies-the-rock-springs-land-use-plan-amendment-process" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Wyoming Outdoor Council", "position": "Opposes rushed revision of the finalized plan; helped shape the original protective measures", "date": "2025-10-06", "url": "https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2025-10-06/government-shutdown-muddies-the-rock-springs-land-use-plan-amendment-process" }, { "name": "The Wilderness Society", "position": "Opposes the amendment; published the 75%-already-leased statistic", "date": "2025-10", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/feds-to-redo-management-plan-for-3-6m-acres-in-southwest-wyoming/article_e6cba8d3-6b7c-4598-bad9-8ede9e1864dc.html" }, { "name": "WyoFile editorial board / conservation coalition", "position": "Opposes reopening the plan, citing the 12-year public process and 92%-statewide-leased context", "date": "2025-12-16", "url": "https://wyofile.com/wyoming-already-put-in-the-work-on-rock-springs-plan-we-should-respect-it/" }, { "name": "Petroleum Association of Wyoming", "position": "Supports the amendment, citing the 2024 plan as overly restrictive", "date": "2025-10", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/feds-to-redo-management-plan-for-3-6m-acres-in-southwest-wyoming/article_e6cba8d3-6b7c-4598-bad9-8ede9e1864dc.html" }, { "name": "Sweetwater County legislators", "position": "Support the amendment", "date": "2025-02", "url": "https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a005c1a4-e7cf-11ef-a416-479977d870c2.html" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "1997", "event": "Prior Rock Springs Field Office resource management plan signed." }, { "date": "2011", "event": "Rewrite process for a new plan begins." }, { "date": "2024-08", "event": "Draft plan and EIS released; 90-day comment period opens, later extended 90 more days at governor's request." }, { "date": "2024-12", "event": "Rock Springs Resource Management Plan finalized after 13 years of process." }, { "date": "2025-02", "event": "Interior Secretary Burgum granted authority to review/revise the plan under Trump directive." }, { "date": "2025-10", "event": "BLM formally announces intent to amend the plan; Federal Register notice opens a 30-day scoping comment period." }, { "date": "2025-11-06", "event": "Comment period extended 45 days." }, { "date": "2025-12-18", "event": "Extended scoping comment period closes." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "wyoming-tribune-eagle", "label": "Feds to redo management plan for 3.6M acres in southwest Wyoming", "publisher": "Wyoming Tribune Eagle / WyoFile (wyomingnews.com)", "date": "2025-10-03", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/feds-to-redo-management-plan-for-3-6m-acres-in-southwest-wyoming/article_e6cba8d3-6b7c-4598-bad9-8ede9e1864dc.html", "supports": "75%-already-leased figure, 1.1M-acre exclusion detail, industry reaction" }, { "id": "wyoming-tribune-eagle-2", "label": "Feds extend comment for vast Rock Springs public land management area", "publisher": "Wyoming Tribune Eagle (wyomingnews.com)", "date": "2025-11-06", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/laramieboomerang/laramieboomerang/news/feds-extend-comment-for-vast-rock-springs-public-land-management-area/article_6d4b6c17-be97-4712-9743-c07af090df73.html", "supports": "45-day comment extension, December 18 deadline" }, { "id": "gillette-news-record", "label": "President Trump pulls back Biden administration's Rock Springs Resource Management Plan", "publisher": "Gillette News Record", "date": "2025-02-10", "url": "https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a005c1a4-e7cf-11ef-a416-479977d870c2.html", "supports": "February 2025 Burgum authorization, Sweetwater County legislator support" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "wyoming-outdoor-council", "label": "PROTECT THE RED DESERT: ROCK SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN", "publisher": "Wyoming Outdoor Council", "date": "2023-12-27", "url": "https://wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/rocksprings-rmp/", "supports": "Sage-grouse/wildlife habitat description, cultural/indigenous significance framing" }, { "id": "wyoming-public-media", "label": "Government shutdown muddies Rock Springs land use amendment process", "publisher": "Wyoming Public Media", "date": "2025-10-06", "url": "https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2025-10-06/government-shutdown-muddies-the-rock-springs-land-use-plan-amendment-process", "supports": "9-month reversal characterization, shutdown-related consultation concerns" }, { "id": "wyoming-tribune-eagle-3", "label": "BLM releases long-awaited management plan for Red Desert region", "publisher": "Wyoming Tribune Eagle (wyomingnews.com)", "date": "2024-09-22", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/blm-releases-long-awaited-management-plan-for-red-desert-region/article_4bf0be7a-3df8-11ee-9ab0-6f17aa1d657c.html", "supports": "2011 process start date, 1997 prior plan date, planning history" }, { "id": "wyofile", "label": "Wyoming already put in the work on Rock Springs plan. We should respect it.", "publisher": "WyoFile", "date": "2025-12-16", "url": "https://wyofile.com/wyoming-already-put-in-the-work-on-rock-springs-plan-we-should-respect-it/", "supports": "$1.5B recreation economy figure, 92% statewide leasing figure, task-force recommendation detail" }, { "id": "rawlins-times", "label": "Feds to redo management plan for 3.6M acres in southwest Wyoming (Rawlins Times)", "publisher": "Rawlins Times (wyomingnews.com)", "date": "2025-10-06", "url": "https://www.wyomingnews.com/rawlinstimes/rawlinstimes/feds-to-redo-management-plan-for-3-6m-acres-in-southwest-wyoming/article_2e964202-7ff1-4ebb-9cf8-995ef8849064.html", "supports": "Federal Register notice detail, comment submission channels" }, { "id": "wyoming-wilderness-association", "label": "Rock Springs Resource Management Plan", "publisher": "Wyoming Wilderness Association (WWA)", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.wildwyo.org/general-7-1", "supports": "Red Desert/Great Divide Basin geological description, dune field detail" }, { "id": "wyoming-wildlife-federation", "label": "Rock Springs Resource Management Plan", "publisher": "Wyoming Wildlife Federation", "date": "2025-10-08", "url": "https://wyomingwildlife.org/rsrmp-update/", "supports": "Amendment announcement corroboration" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/rocksprings-rmp/", "comment_deadline": "Scoping comment period closed December 18, 2025; a formal environmental assessment is the next expected step." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page initial publication).\n" }, { "site_name": "Tongass National Forest (2001 Roadless Rule Rescission)", "slug": "tongass-roadless-rule", "location": "Southeast Alaska (Tongass National Forest, plus nationwide National Forest System roadless areas)", "designation_type": "National Forest; threat concerns the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule", "governing_agency": "U.S. Forest Service / USDA", "threat_category": "Logging / road construction \u2014 roadless rule rescission", "status": "Proposed rescission \u2014 draft EIS expected 2026, litigation history ongoing", "coordinates": [ 57.5, -134.0 ], "last_verified": "2026-08-12", "maintainer": "Alicen M.", "one_line_summary": "USDA proposes rescinding roadless protections on ~44.7 million acres nationwide, including 9.2 million roadless acres of the Tongass.", "sections": { "history": "The Tongass National Forest is the largest national forest in the U.S. at 16.7 million acres\nand the world's largest intact temperate rainforest, containing old-growth trees up to 800\nyears old. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has protected roughly 58.5 million acres of\nNational Forest System land nationwide from new road construction and most commercial\nlogging,[[nrdc]] including more than 9 million roadless acres within the\nTongass.[[high-country-news]] In 2020, the first Trump administration exempted the Tongass\nspecifically from roadless protections via the \"Alaska Roadless Rule\"; the Biden administration\nrepealed that exemption on January 27, 2023, restoring the Tongass to standard 2001 Roadless\nRule protection.[[forest-2]][[house-natural-resources]]\n", "current_threat": "On June 23, 2025, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless\nRule nationwide, affecting nearly 45 million acres of national forest, explicitly including the\nTongass.[[forest]][[anchorage-daily-news-2]] A public scoping comment period ran August 2025\nthrough September 19, 2025.[[alaska-sustainable-fisheries]] A Center for Western Priorities\nanalysis of 183,000 comments filed before bulk petitions arrived found that 99.2% opposed the\nrescission, 0.6% supported it and 0.2% were neutral, with a stated margin of error of about\n1.4%; the comment period closed with 223,862 comments posted and 625,737 received overall, the\ndifference reflecting petitions submitted in bulk.[[center-western-priorities]][[conversation]]\nAn earlier 2020 action drew comparable opposition, with 96% of comments\nopposed.[[house-natural-resources]] A draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed rule\nwere expected in 2026.[[forest]] Separately, President Trump's March 2026 executive orders\ndirected a 25% increase in national forest timber volume (targeting 4 billion board feet by\n2028) under a \"Timber Extraction Directive,\" creating overlapping pressure with the roadless\nrescission specifically in parts of the Tongass.[[high-country-news]] As of May 2026, the Forest\nService had not held public meetings specifically on the Tongass roadless rescission, prompting\nSoutheast Alaska Conservation Council to organize independent public\nhearings.[[alaska-news-source]]\n", "impact_environmental": "**Geology & Forest Type:** The Tongass is an old-growth coastal temperate rainforest along the\nInside Passage; it is documented as one of the world's most significant carbon sinks, absorbing\nmore carbon dioxide than it emits.[[anchorage-daily-news-2]]\n\n**Water:** Roadless areas nationally protect watersheds supplying drinking water to an\nestimated 47 million Americans; the Forest Service's own Watershed Condition Framework uses\nroad density as a key indicator of degraded water quantity/quality, since new roads block\nstream flow and increase sediment loading, which can raise water-purification costs\ndownstream.[[conversation]]\n\n**Habitat & Endangered/Keystone Species:** The Tongass supports eagles, bears (including black\nbears), and salmon populations tied to old-growth-shaded streams; salmon runs specifically\ndepend on intact forest cover, since the Tongass provides two-thirds of the pink salmon and 75%\nof the coho caught by commercial fishermen in Southeast Alaska\nwaters.[[alaska-sustainable-fisheries]]\n\n**Climate:** As one of the world's largest carbon sinks, large-scale logging in the Tongass\nwould release stored carbon and reduce future carbon sequestration capacity, a documented\nconcern distinct from and additive to habitat-fragmentation effects.\n\n**Long-Term Effects:** Habitat fragmentation from new permanent road construction is\ncharacterized by conservation groups as unable to be restored once built.[[nrdc]] A cited\nhistorical precedent: unregulated 1980s clearcut logging in the Tongass (e.g., at K\u00edis Gwaay)\ncaused damage that the Organized Village of Kasaan and other tribes describe as still being\nactively repaired decades later, illustrating multi-decade recovery timelines even after logging\nstops.[[anchorage-daily-news]]\n", "impact_cultural": "For Southeast Alaska Native tribes, including the Organized Village of Kasaan (Haida) and\nTlingit & Haida Nations, the Tongass is documented as indistinguishable from cultural identity,\nsubsistence practice, and traditional ways of life; tribal leaders have specifically framed the\nproposed rescission as a violation of tribal treaty rights, trust responsibilities, and federal\nlaw, not solely an environmental issue.\n", "impact_economic": "A published estimate found industrial logging in the Tongass has cost taxpayers $1.7 billion\nover 40 years, while creating comparatively few jobs, according to the Alaska Sustainable\nFisheries Trust's compiled analysis; the same analysis estimated the Roadless Rule has saved\napproximately $5 billion in avoided road-building costs over 20 years nationally. The Tongass\nalso underpins a documented tourism and commercial/subsistence fishing economy tied to intact\nsalmon habitat (see environmental section for salmon-catch percentages). A dedicated modern\ncost-benefit analysis specific to the 2025-2026 rescission proposal was not identified in\ncurrent sourcing.\n", "impact_legal": "NRDC and other groups have a documented multi-decade litigation and advocacy history defending\nroadless protections for the Tongass specifically, including prior battles over the 2020\nAlaska-specific exemption. New litigation specific to the 2025-2026 nationwide rescission\nproposal was not identified as filed yet in current sourcing, likely because the rule remains\nin the draft EIS/proposed-rule stage as of this page's last verification.\n", "impact_health": "Not yet documented \u2014 no dedicated human-health impact study specific to the roadless rescission\nwas identified in current sourcing.\n", "consultation_status": "When the Trump administration previously proposed removing Tongass roadless protections (a\ndistinct, earlier 2020 action), 96% of public comments submitted opposed the proposal. For the\ncurrent 2025-2026 rescission, a public scoping comment period ran through September 19, 2025.\nHowever, as of May 2026, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council stated the Forest Service was\n\"refusing to hold any public meetings\" specifically on the roadless rule question, instead\ndirecting input through its ongoing review process for individual active timber proposals \u2014 a\nnarrower channel than a dedicated roadless-rule public meeting. Tribal leaders (Organized\nVillage of Kasaan and others) have separately and explicitly called for tribal governments to be\ntreated as cooperating agencies in the environmental review, indicating that status had not yet\nbeen granted as of their public statements.\n" }, "contractors": [ { "name": "U.S. Forest Service / USDA", "role": "Rulemaking agency", "responsibility": "Announced intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule; conducting the draft EIS and proposed-rule process", "value": "", "url": "https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless" }, { "name": "Timber industry stakeholders (unnamed specific companies not yet identified in current sourcing)", "role": "Beneficiary industry", "responsibility": "Would gain access to previously roadless timber volume under the Timber Extraction Directive's 25% volume-increase target", "value": "Not yet documented \u2014 specific company names, contract values, or timber-sale bidders not identified in current sourcing", "url": "https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-new-era-of-industrial-logging-looms/" } ], "opposition_support": [ { "name": "Southeast Alaska Conservation Council", "position": "Opposes the rescission; organized independent public hearings after stating the Forest Service refused to hold its own", "date": "2026-05-06", "url": "https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/05/06/virtual-tongass-roadless-rule-town-hall-planned-forest-service-advances-logging-proposals/" }, { "name": "Organized Village of Kasaan (Haida)", "position": "Opposes the rescission; frames it as violating tribal treaty rights", "date": "2026-04-23", "url": "https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/04/22/opinion-the-roadless-rule-safeguards-the-tongass-and-helps-us-heal/" }, { "name": "Tlingit & Haida Nations", "position": "Oppose the rescission and the overlapping Timber Extraction Directive's old-growth harvest implications", "date": "2026", "url": "https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-new-era-of-industrial-logging-looms/" }, { "name": "NRDC", "position": "Continuing decades-long advocacy and litigation history to protect Tongass roadless status", "date": "2025-06-25", "url": "https://www.nrdc.org/stories/alaskas-tongass-national-forest-risk-once-again" }, { "name": "Rep. Ra\u00fal Grijalva (D-Ariz.), House Natural Resources Committee", "position": "Has previously praised roadless restoration for the Tongass; opposes rescission", "date": "2023-01-25", "url": "https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/ranking-democrat-grijalva-cheers-repeal-of-reckless-trump-era-rule-for-tongass-national-forest" } ], "timeline": [ { "date": "2001", "event": "2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule adopted, protecting ~58.5 million acres nationwide." }, { "date": "2020", "event": "First Trump administration exempts the Tongass specifically via the Alaska Roadless Rule." }, { "date": "2023-01-27", "event": "Biden administration repeals the Alaska-specific exemption, restoring standard roadless protection to the Tongass." }, { "date": "2025-06-23", "event": "USDA Secretary Rollins announces intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide, including the Tongass." }, { "date": "2025-08 to 2025-09-19", "event": "Public scoping comment period held; a Center for Western Priorities analysis of 183,000 comments found 99.2% opposed the rescission." }, { "date": "2026-03", "event": "Trump executive orders direct a 25% national forest timber-volume increase (Timber Extraction Directive)." }, { "date": "2026-05-06", "event": "Southeast Alaska Conservation Council holds independent public hearings after stating USFS declined to hold its own." }, { "date": "2026 (expected)", "event": "Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed rule expected to be released." } ], "sources_primary": [ { "id": "forest", "label": "Roadless Areas", "publisher": "U.S. Forest Service", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless", "supports": "Official rescission announcement date, acreage figures, EIS timeline" }, { "id": "forest-2", "label": "Roadless Area - Alaska Rule", "publisher": "U.S. Forest Service", "date": "n.d.", "url": "https://fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless/alaska-rule", "supports": "2020/2023 Alaska-specific rule history, executive order reference" } ], "sources_secondary": [ { "id": "center-western-priorities", "label": "Comment analysis finds over 99% opposition to repealing 2001 Roadless Rule", "publisher": "Center for Western Priorities (nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization)", "date": "2025-09", "url": "https://westernpriorities.org/2025/09/comment-analysis-finds-over-99-opposition-to-repealing-2001-roadless-rule/", "supports": "Analysis of 183,000 public comments filed before bulk petitions arrived, finding 99.2% opposed the rescission, 0.6% in support and 0.2% neutral, with a stated margin of error of approximately 1.4%; and the closing totals of 223,862 comments posted against 625,737 received" }, { "id": "conversation", "label": "Paving paradise: Dismantling the US Roadless Rule threatens to disrupt wildlife, water and peace", "publisher": "The Conversation", "date": "2026-06-15", "url": "https://theconversation.com/paving-paradise-dismantling-the-us-roadless-rule-threatens-to-disrupt-wildlife-water-and-peace-in-the-last-quiet-places-in-america-275435", "supports": "47 million Americans' drinking water figure, Watershed Condition Framework detail, public comment opposition finding" }, { "id": "high-country-news", "label": "A new era of industrial logging looms", "publisher": "High Country News", "date": "2026 (recent)", "url": "https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-new-era-of-industrial-logging-looms/", "supports": "Timber Extraction Directive volume targets, Tongass 9.2M roadless acres figure, tribal concern" }, { "id": "anchorage-daily-news", "label": "Opinion: The Roadless Rule safeguards the Tongass \u2014 and helps us heal", "publisher": "Anchorage Daily News", "date": "2026-04-23", "url": "https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/04/22/opinion-the-roadless-rule-safeguards-the-tongass-and-helps-us-heal/", "supports": "K\u00edis Gwaay historical clearcutting recovery example, tribal cultural framing" }, { "id": "anchorage-daily-news-2", "label": "Opinion: Safeguarding the Roadless Rule saves the Tongass Forest", "publisher": "Anchorage Daily News", "date": "2026-04-04", "url": "https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/04/03/opinion-safeguarding-the-roadless-rule-saves-the-tongass-forest/", "supports": "44.7 million acre figure, tribal treaty-rights framing, carbon-sink description" }, { "id": "nrdc", "label": "Alaska's Tongass National Forest at Risk Once Again", "publisher": "NRDC", "date": "2025-06-25", "url": "https://www.nrdc.org/stories/alaskas-tongass-national-forest-risk-once-again", "supports": "58.5 million acre national figure, old-growth tree age, litigation history" }, { "id": "alaska-sustainable-fisheries", "label": "The Roadless Rule", "publisher": "Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust", "date": "2025-09-19", "url": "https://thealaskatrust.org/alaska-roadless-rule-2", "supports": "Salmon catch percentages, $1.7B logging cost / $5B savings figures, comment period dates" }, { "id": "alaska-news-source", "label": "Virtual Tongass Roadless Rule town hall planned", "publisher": "Alaska's News Source", "date": "2026-05-06", "url": "https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/05/06/virtual-tongass-roadless-rule-town-hall-planned-forest-service-advances-logging-proposals/", "supports": "Public meeting/consultation process gap, tourism economy framing" }, { "id": "house-natural-resources", "label": "Ranking Democrat Grijalva Cheers Repeal of Reckless Trump-Era Rule for Tongass National Forest", "publisher": "House Natural Resources Committee (Democrats)", "date": "2023-01-25", "url": "https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/ranking-democrat-grijalva-cheers-repeal-of-reckless-trump-era-rule-for-tongass-national-forest", "supports": "2023 repeal-of-exemption context, 96% opposition figure from the earlier 2020 action" } ], "action": { "petition_url": "https://thealaskatrust.org/alaska-roadless-rule-2", "comment_deadline": "Formal scoping comment period closed September 19, 2025; a draft EIS and new comment period were expected in 2026." }, "corrections_log": "None on record as of 2026-08-12 (page initial publication).\n" } ]