Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2025
HB2861, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2025, would withdraw a defined area of federal land in New Mexico surrounding Chaco Culture National Historical Park from most forms of federal land entry and development. The bill is aimed at protecting archaeological, sacred, historic, and cultural resources in the Greater Chaco region, which Congress finds are significant to Pueblo Indian Tribes, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and other Tribes with cultural ties to the area. It also emphasizes the importance of preserving the park’s night skies, visitor experience, and the broader cultural landscape associated with the Chacoan people.
The bill would prohibit new mining, mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, and other public land dispositions on the covered federal lands, subject to valid existing rights. It defines “covered leases” to include certain non-producing oil and gas leases and requires those leases to terminate automatically under existing mineral leasing law, while also preventing the Secretary of the Interior from extending them. Any land later acquired by the federal government within the withdrawal area would also be covered by the same restrictions. The bill preserves tribal mineral rights on trust or allotment land and allows for water, power, utility, and road improvements or rights-of-way that support nearby communities.
In practical terms, the bill would strengthen federal protection for the landscape around Chaco Canyon by limiting future oil and gas development and other extractive uses on the specified federal lands. It would likely affect federal land managers, energy developers, and leaseholders in the San Juan County area, while leaving existing valid rights intact. The measure also leaves room for conveyance or exchange of federal land with Indian Tribes under applicable land-use planning processes.
The available context shows little recorded debate or voting history: the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, with no committee transcript or vote data provided. Based on the bill text, the overall sentiment is strongly protective of cultural heritage and environmental values, with the sponsors framing the measure as necessary to safeguard sacred sites, archaeological resources, and community health from the impacts of oil and gas development. Because no opposing statements are included, the main likely point of contention is the restriction on future energy development and the automatic termination of certain non-producing leases, which would be of concern to industry interests and some land-use stakeholders.
Overall, HB2861 is a land-withdrawal and preservation bill focused on balancing cultural protection with limited allowances for infrastructure and existing rights. Its central policy choice is to prioritize preservation of the Greater Chaco landscape over new mineral and energy development on the covered federal lands.
The bill would amend federal land management in New Mexico by withdrawing specified federal lands around Chaco Culture National Historical Park from entry, mining, mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing, while also directing the automatic termination of certain non-producing oil and gas leases. It would affect the Bureau of Land Management’s administration of the area, constrain future energy and mineral development, and preserve tribal rights on trust and allotment lands, while allowing certain utility, water, power, and road improvements and potential tribal conveyances or exchanges.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect strong support for cultural preservation, tribal consultation, and protection of sacred and archaeological resources in the Greater Chaco region. Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no recorded formal opposition in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests that the main support comes from preservation and tribal interests, while the likely opposition would come from oil and gas stakeholders and others concerned about limits on resource development.
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on oil, gas, and other mineral development in the withdrawal area, including the automatic termination of certain non-producing leases and the prohibition on extending them. Supporters are likely to emphasize protection of cultural sites, night skies, and tribal heritage, while opponents would likely focus on impacts to energy production, leaseholders, and local economic activity. A secondary issue is the scope of federal land withdrawal and how it interacts with existing rights, though the bill expressly preserves valid existing rights and tribal mineral interests.