Coalition Opposes Proposed Eagle Take Permit at Valles Caldera National Preserve – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

October 15, 2026

Jessica Bowron
Comptroller, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Subject: Pueblo of Jemez Special Use Permit for Traditional Religious Cultural Activities

Dear Acting Director Bowron:

The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition) is comprised of more than 5,400 members and supporters, including retired, former, and current National Park Service (NPS) employees or volunteers who collectively represent more than 50,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. The Coalition studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System.

The Coalition respects the NPS relationships and collaborative approaches in stewardship with Indian Tribes and other indigenous partners. We value our shared perspectives and implementation strategies that foster not only biodiversity and conservation of our public lands and resources, but also the restoration and perpetuation of species and ecosystems across the landscape, such as bison and our work with the Blackfeet in the Glacier National Park ecosystem, California condor restoration with the Yurok in the Redwoods, Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes protecting sacred lands and waters of the Everglades, and farmscape restoration with the Navajo Nation at Canyon de Chelly. Over 109 parks have formal Tribal co-stewardship agreements, with many more pending in conversation with Tribes to continue to protect shared resources and resolve issues and conflicts that may arise as we work toward shared stewardship goals and objectives.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NPS proposal to issue a special use permit (SUP) that would authorize members of Jemez Pueblo to pursue, capture, and kill an eagle (bald or golden) within Valles Caldera National Preserve (VALL). First and foremost, the Coalition fully supports the NPS in honoring its legal responsibilities to American Indian Tribes as required by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, and court decisions. [1] While we respect the inter-governmental relationships and collaborative approaches that NPS takes in addressing park stewardship issues with Indian Tribes, we do have concerns about this specific proposal and offer the following comments for your consideration.

INTRODUCTION

The NPS has issued an environmental assessment (EA) in support of a proposed action to issue a special use permit (SUP) that would authorize members of the Jemez Pueblo to pursue, capture, and kill an eagle (bald or golden) within Valles Caldera National Preserve (VALL). The NPS previously issued a similar SUP authorizing the Jemez Pueblo to capture and kill one eagle at VALL in 2023. However, that permit was issued without public input. The current proposed action is presented as a programmatic approach that could involve the NPS issuance of future eagle take SUPs at VALL without additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. For the reasons described in the comments below, we strongly oppose the preferred alternative and encourage the adoption of the EA’s No Action alternative.

The bald eagle, returning from the brink of extinction and still suffering from many threats, is our national bird. The NPS, allowing for the killing of our national bird, especially during the year we celebrate our nation’s 250th year of freedom, should be alarming to the American public who expects the NPS to protect and preserve the “wild life therein” in America’s park units, for all time, for all Americans. The EA proposes to allow the take of one eagle for ceremonial purposes at VALL, an action that could impair the resources and values in VALL that the Organic Act of August 25, 1916 requires the NPS conserve.

In the context of VALL, the park’s enabling legislation[1] provides that:

NPS, in consultation with Indian tribes and pueblos, shall ensure the protection of traditional cultural and religious sites in the Preserve;

NPS is required to provide access by tribal or pueblo members to traditional cultural and religious sites within VALL;

NPS may temporarily close to general public use specific areas of the Preserve to protect traditional cultural and customary uses in the area by members of the Indian tribe or pueblo.

While the enabling legislation mandates the protection of Tribal and pueblo cultural and religious sites and access to those sites, and provides for the closure of those sites to the general public when the sites are being used by tribal or pueblo members, the enabling legislation is notably silent on the issue of the take of threatened and endangered wildlife within VALL for ceremonial purposes. Absent a clear mandate that such activity be allowed at VALL, the Coalition believes that the proposed action is in violation of law and regulation. Given the EA’s “programmatic approach,” we are also very concerned that the proposed action will establish a harmful precedent of allowing similar take of wildlife for ceremonial purposes at other parks in the absence of a clear and specific mandate to allow such use in units of the National Park System. We will discuss this and other concerns in the section below.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. As presented in the EA, the NPS’s legal rationale for allowing the eagle take at VALL is fundamentally flawed and conflicts with numerous applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

In the EA’s Purpose and Need section, NPS attempts to construct a legal rationale for authorizing the proposed eagle take activity at VALL by stating the following points (emphasis added to underlined sections):

NPS is required to allow “hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and water within the [park] in accordance with applicable Federal and State law”;

NPS, in consultation with Indian tribes and pueblos, shall ensure the protection of traditional cultural and religious sites in the Preserve;

NPS is required to provide access by tribal or pueblo members to traditional cultural and religious sites within VALL;

NPS may temporarily close to general public use specific areas of the Preserve to protect traditional cultural and customary uses in the area by members of the Indian tribe or pueblo; and

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 USC 668a, gives the Secretary the discretionary authority, exercised through the USFWS, to issue eagle take permits for the religious purposes of Indian Tribes.

Taken collectively, the above statements do NOT provide a clear and specific mandate that NPS must allow the proposed eagle take for religious or ceremonial purposes at VALL. Instead, the NPS rationale relies heavily on unwritten implication(s), rather than on actual stated mandates; and, as a result, the NPS rationale falls short on many levels.

First, “taking eagles for religious purposes” at VALL is NOT considered “hunting” or “trapping” under any applicable federal or state laws, including NPS and New Mexico state hunting regulations. As a result, the enabling act’s mandate to allow “hunting” and “trapping” at VALL is irrelevant to the eagle take situation.

Second, the enabling act’s mandate that NPS “protect” traditional cultural and religious “sites” at VALL and allow “access” to tribal members to such sites does NOT equate to a mandate that NPS allow the killing of a protected, non-game wildlife species for ceremonial purposes.

Third, the Secretary’s “discretionary authority” under the BGEPA to issue eagle take permits for religious purposes does NOT serve as a specific mandate or requirement to issue such a permit for eagle take within any unit of the National Park System including VALL.

Prior to the NPS issuance of the Jemez Pueblo eagle take SUP at VALL in 2023, no such permit had ever been issued by NPS for the take of a protected species (in this case, eagles) within a park unit because numerous applicable NPS laws, regulations, and policies generally preclude such activity from occurring. We will summarize such guidance below.

— The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 535) directed the NPS: “…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” (Emphasis added) Congress supplemented and clarified the Organic Act’s conservation mandate through enactment of the General Authorities Act in 1970, and again through enactment of a 1978 amendment to that act (referred to as the Redwood Amendment), which stated, in part: “The authorization of activities [in parks] shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1)” (Emphasis added) In this case, the BGEPA (i.e., Congress) did NOT “directly and specifically” mandate the take of eagles for religious purposes within any unit of the National Park System including VALL. Therefore, NPS should NOT allow such activity at VALL.

Furthermore, as described in NPS Management Policies[2], Section 1.4.2:

Congress intended the language of the Redwood amendment to the General Authorities Act to reiterate the provisions of the Organic Act, not create a substantively different management standard. The House committee report described the Redwood amendment as a “declaration by Congress” that the promotion and regulation of the national park system is to be consistent with the Organic Act. The Senate committee report stated that under the Redwood amendment, “The Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised, to fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Act to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system.” (Emphasis added)

As described in NPS Management Policies[3], Section 1.4.3:

The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values… Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act. (Emphasis added)

In other words, whereas the BGEPA gives the Secretary the discretion to authorize eagle take permits, under the NPS Organic Act the Secretary “has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised” to protect eagles within the boundaries of VALL. And when there is a conflict between conservation versus use of resources including eagles, “conservation is to be predominant.” In our view, the Secretary’s “absolute duty to protect” resources within parks clearly trumps the Secretary’s “discretionary authority” to allow the proposed eagle take. Therefore, the NPS in exercising the delegated authority of the Secretary must deny the request for an eagle take SUP at VALL.

— The Valles Caldera National Preserve enabling legislation[4], Public Law 113-291 Sec. 3043[5], designates the area as a unit of the National Park System and mandates that NPS “shall allow hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and water within the [park] in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.” The enabling act also requires NPS to “protect” traditional cultural and religious sites in the Preserve; and to provide “access” by tribal or pueblo members to sites for “traditional cultural and customary uses” within VALL, in accordance with the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) at 42 USC 1996. Both the enabling act and AIRFA itself apply the common usage of “access” to mean ingress and egress. “Access” clearly does NOT equate to the ceremonial killing of a protected, non-game species of park wildlife such as bald and golden eagles. The enabling legislation also authorizes NPS to temporarily close to general public use specific areas of the Preserve to protect traditional cultural and customary uses in the area by members of the Indian Tribe or pueblo. Ensuring the “protection” of cultural sites and “access” to such sites does NOT equate to a mandate that NPS must allow the take of eagles or other protected, non-game wildlife species for Native American religious purposes within any unit of the National Park System including VALL. In other words, in designating VALL as a unit of the National Park System, Congress did NOT specifically provide for the take of eagles by Tribes or pueblos within the park for religious or ceremonial purposes.

In addition, the language regarding hunting and trapping in VALL’s enabling act is very similar to the wording in the respective enabling legislations for approximately 70 other national park system units where Congress has mandated that recreational sport hunting “shall” be allowed. VALL is also one of 40 parks in the subset of such units where trapping is also mandated. The capture and killing of eagles for religious purposes is NOT considered “hunting” or “trapping” in the common meaning of those words as applied across the National Park System or under any applicable state hunting and trapping regulations. For these reasons, the NPS has NEVER approved eagle capture or killing, for religious purposes or otherwise in any park unit prior to the issuance of the 2023 SUP at VALL.

— The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 16 USC 668a[6], gives the Secretary the discretionary authority, exercised through the USFWS, to issue eagle take permits for the religious purposes of Indian Tribes. It should be noted that the primary purpose of the BGEPA, as enacted by Congress in 1940, was to protect the bird species that is the national symbol and now our nation’s national bird. In 1962, Congress amended the Act to include the protection of golden eagles. The 1962 amendment also included an authorization to the Secretary of the Interior to permit the taking and possession of eagles (bald and golden) for the “religious purpose of Indian Tribes.” The Secretary’s power to issue a permit to take and/or possess eagles or their parts for all of the purposes specified in law, including for the religious purposes of tribes, is a discretionary duty (i.e., it is NOT “mandatory”). In contrast, under the NPS Organic Act the Secretary “has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised” to protect eagles within the boundaries of VALL. And when there is a conflict between conservation versus use of resources including eagles, “conservation is to be predominant.” In our view, the Secretary’s “absolute duty to protect” resources within VALL clearly trumps the Secretary’s “discretionary authority” to allow the proposed eagle take. Therefore, the NPS must deny the request for an eagle take SUP at VALL.

— The 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 42 USC 1996[7], provides that “each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.” In essence, the focus of AIRFA is on the protection of, and ensuring access to, Native American sacred sites. The Act is silent on the issue of eagle take for religious purposes; and therefore cannot be construed as a “mandate” for such activity.

— NPS Management Policies 2006[8], Section 5.3.5.3.1 Resource Access and Use, states, in part: “[T]he NPS will strive to allow American Indians and other traditionally associated peoples access to and use of ethnographic resources. Continued access to and use of ethnographic resources is often essential to the survival of family, community, or regional cultural systems, including patterns of belief and sociocultural and religious life. With regard to consumptive use of park resources, current NPS policy is reflected in regulations published at 36 CFR 2.1. The regulations do NOT authorize the taking, use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes except where specifically authorized by federal statute or treaty rights or where hunting, trapping, or fishing are otherwise allowed.” (Emphasis added) In other words and as stated multiple times above, the proposed take of eagles at VALL is NOT “specifically authorized by federal statute or treaty rights” nor is it authorized under applicable federal and state hunting and trapping regulations.

— NPS Management Policies 2006[9] Section 8.5, Use by American Indians and Other Traditionally Associated Groups, includes the following provision: “With regard to consumptive use of park resources, current NPS policy is reflected in regulations published at 36 CFR 2.1 and 36 CFR Part 13… The regulations do NOT authorize the taking, use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes, except where specifically authorized by federal statute or treaty rights or where hunting, trapping, or fishing are otherwise allowed.” In this case, there is no “federal statute or treaty rights” that “specifically authorize” the take of eagles for religious purposes within any unit of the National Park System including VALL.

— NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1[10] relates to “Preservation of natural, cultural and archeological resources.” Subsection (a) prohibits “(1) Possessing, destroying, injuring,,…removing,…or disturbing from its natural state: (i) Living or dead wildlife…”. In addition, section 2.1(d), states: “This section shall NOT be construed as authorizing the taking, use or possession of…wildlife…for ceremonial or religious purposes, except where specifically authorized by Federal statutory law, treaty rights, or in accordance with sections 2.2 or 2.3.” In this case, there is no statutory law or treaty rights that has “specifically authorized” the take of eagles for ceremonial purposes at VALL.

— NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.2[11] relates to “Wildlife Protection” in parks. Subsection (b)(1) provides that: “Hunting shall be “allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law.” In this case, VALL’s enabling act provides such a mandate. Subsection (b)(4) provides that: “Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located. Nonconflicting State laws are adopted as a part of these regulations.” (Emphasis added) The EA fails to mention that the Jemez have no state permit nor did in association with the 2023 SUP.

In summary, absent a clear and specific statutory mandate to issue the proposed eagle take permit at VALL, the proposed action is in clear conflict with numerous applicable laws, regulations, and policies that are summarized above. Therefore, NPS should select the EA’s No Action alternative in order to comply with the Secretary’s “absolute duty to protect park resources” under the NPs Organic Act.

2. The EA’s analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed action is inadequate – Our second major concern relates to the adequacy (i.e., the inadequacy) of the NPS environmental impact analysis of the proposed action. The killing of eagle(s) in VALL or in any area of the national park system is a serious injury to park resources; and such an injury is not within the discretion of the NPS and requires explicit authorization by Congress. Although Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits to take eagles for the religious purposes of Indian Tribes under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), as amended in 1962, Congress has never directly or specifically authorized the killing of eagles in the national park system, whether in VALL or any other NPS unit.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., requires that each branch of government appropriately considers the environment prior to the implementation of any major federal action that can significantly affect the environment. In addition, NEPA prescribes that the NPS or any Federal agency, may NOT propose an action that violates substantive law and regulation. Yet this EA does NOT adequately explain the NPS legal rationale for allowing such use; and the EA does NOT adequately assess the impacts of the proposed action on the environment or on the wildlife and ecosystem of VALL. The EA discusses the “what if” denial of a permit would have upon the permit applicant-the Jemez Pueblo. However, the EA does NOT mention that there are thirteen tribal zoos that now raise raptors including eagles for the purpose of the Tribes using these animals and their parts for the traditional cultural purposes. [M1] And the EA does NOT evaluate the use of tribal-raised eagles

as a low-impact alternative to the proposed take of wild eagles for ceremonial purposes within a unit of the National Parks System.

The Organic Act mandates that the NPS “conserve “wild life” and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired.” The take of a single eagle, bald or golden, resident or migrant, in VALL inevitably impacts park resources and values, as well as the public enjoyment of those resources. Eagle species are the apex avian raptor throughout the United States and within VALL. The enjoyment that they afford the park visitor is incalculable. Taking eagles is a disruption of significant dimensions within the ecosystem. Any attempt to classify this as a “minor” impact is flawed.

In addition, the EA provides no inventory or monitoring data to support a finding that the proposed future killing of eagles within VALL will not adversely affect breeding and productivity or adversely alter park resources and values in the short and long terms. In addition, the NPS cannot rely on USFWS eagle population data for New Mexico or the Western United States as a basis for the NPS non-impairment determination. The USFWS uses such data in considering applications by Tribes to take eagles from the wild, over very broad geographic areas. The USFWS applies the data to determine if such take would have a significant impact on the populations and therefore trigger greater scrutiny under NEPA. Due to a decrease in staff to inventory and monitor wildlife within park units, there is not recent relevant data available on breeding, residency, nest site productivity, or migration of eagles within VALL prior to or following the last take of raptors within VALL.

The Organic Act mandates that the NPS “conserve wild life” and “provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired.” The take of a single eagle, bald or golden, resident or migrant, in VALL potentially impairs its resources and values, and the enjoyment of those resources and values. Eagle species are the apex avian raptor throughout the United States and within VALL. The enjoyment that they afford the park visitor is incalculable. Taking eagles is a disruption of significant dimensions within the Preserve’s ecosystem.

3. The EA does NOT acknowledge or address reported non-compliance with the 2023 eagle take Sup at VALL – In addition to the above concerns, it has been reported[13] that the terms and conditions of the 2023 NPS special use permit (SUP) were violated by the take of more than the one eagle within the Preserve. The NPS possess evidence that the Jemez Pueblo submitted an inaccurate report. That evidence was gathered at the eagle gathering sites within the Preserve by NPS law enforcement Rangers and presented to the USFWS National Forensic Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. The Laboratory subsequently produced an analysis of the bird remains gathered by the NPS and concluded that the remains were of approximately 19 individual birds, including a bald eagle killed in VALL outside of the permitted dates. Because of the programmatic nature of the EA, the previous non-compliance is clearly relevant to EA’s analysis of potential impacts; yet the EA neither acknowledges nor addresses this concern. We ask that NPS address this concern in the final EA and/or FONSI.

As the agency administering the SUP and proposed future SUPs, the NPS has an affirmative responsibility to monitor permitted activities in order to reasonably ensure compliance with the SUP’s terms and conditions. Yet, the EA fails to identify basic monitoring procedures that NPS would follow in order to ensure compliance with future eagle take SUPs at VALL. It would be irresponsible of NPS to issue new eagle take permits at VALL permits under a programmatic approach if NPS does not adequately address reported concerns about compliance with the previous SUP.

The killing of an eagle in VALL, or a traditional or ritual killing of a bison in Yellowstone National Park, or an elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, or a bighorn sheep or condor in Grand Canyon National Park, or a wolf at Isle Royal, is in derogation of park values and purposes and in violation of the 1978 (“Redwood”) amendment to the 1970 General Authorities Act. Should this action be approved at VALL, then no park unit may be safe from the take of wildlife under similar permit conditions. If the reasoning in this EA is adopted, then AIRFA would allow any religious entity, Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and Native Hawaiian to take natural resources that they deem as sacred objects and kill any wildlife that they consider to be a “ceremonial(s) or traditional rite(s)” in any park in the national park system with which they claim they are associated.

CLOSING COMMENTS

In summary, the Coalition has the following concerns about the proposed action and related EA:

The EA fails to provide a credible explanation of the NPS legal rationale for issuing the proposed and future eagle take SUPs at VALL. Lacking a clear and specific statutory mandate to issue the proposed eagle take permit at VALL, the proposed action is in clear conflict with numerous applicable laws, regulations, and policies that are summarized above. Therefore, NPS should select the EA’s No Action alternative in order to comply with the Secretary’s “absolute duty to protect park resources” under the NPs Organic Act.

The EA fails to provide an adequate analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action on Preserve resources and values; and

The EA does not address the reported non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the previous NPS eagle take SUP. Similarly, the EA fails to describe any NPS plans to monitor permitted eagle take activities in the future in order to ensure compliance with SUP terms and conditions.

Considering only two alternatives suggests that this action is predecisional. Not addressing the collecting of an eagle outside of the national park unit and allowing a SUP for implementing the rest of the cultural traditions within the Preserve, confirms the suggestion of predecisional.

The NPS has prepared an EA that lacks even the most rudimentary basis for assessing the environmental consequences. In addition, other local Tribal units or Pueblos may oppose the actions of the Jemez, such as voiced by the Santa Clara Pueblo. The EA should include a summary of consultation that may have occurred with surrounding Tribes and pueblos prior to or post the Jemez viewing a draft of the EA..

The proposed action, unlike in October 2023, is scheduled to recur annually, in perpetuity, with no further compliance with NEPA and granted to the permit requesters that seriously violated the terms of their previous permit.

The NPS must consider and thoughtfully analyze this action and the public comments that are offered. For Americans and the world, the national park system represents the most protected lands and waters in the nation. The NPS, allowing for the killing of our national bird, especially during the year we celebrate our nation’s 250th year of freedom, will be alarming to the American public who expects the NPS to protect and preserve the “wild life therein” in America’s parks, for all times.

We respectfully request that NPS fully consider and address our concerns in finalizing the EA. We also ask that NPS provide an explanation and/or response to the above concerns in the Response to Comments section of the forthcoming decision document (presumably a FONSI).

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Schreier
Chair
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
2 Massachusetts Ave NE
Unit 77436 Washington, DC 20013
(202) 819-8622

Footnotes

[1] https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/MP_2006_amended.pdf. Management Policies Section 1.11.

[1] Public Law 113-291, § 3043(b)(11)(A-B))

[2] https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/MP_2006_amended.pdf

[3] https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/MP_2006_amended.pdf

[4] Public Law 113-291, § 3043(b)(11)(A-B))

[5] https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ291/PLAW-113publ291.pdf

[6] https://uscode.ecfr.io/title/16/section/668a

[7] https://uscode.ecfr.io/title/42/section/1996