Stop a poorly reviewed fire plan from harming Grand Canyon
Fire Management Plan
National Park Service· Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon wilderness areasNPS Planning (PEPC) project page ↗
NPS PEPCWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Arizona
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Center for Biological Diversity
Works Arizona: tucson-based litigant that in 2003 pressured BLM to order Grupo Mexico/Asarco to remove an illegal pipeline, powerline, and road crossing the monument near the Silver Bell mine..
- Grand Canyon Trust
Works Arizona: intervened in federal court to defend the monument designation against the Arizona Legislature's lawsuit.
- Sierra Club
Works Arizona: the Grand Canyon Chapter has been co-plaintiff with Western Watersheds Project in the monument grazing litigation, including the 2021 case that produced the 2024 restricted-grazing plan..
- Western Watersheds Project
Works Arizona: sued BLM over monument grazing in 2008, 2013, and 2021, winning the August 2023 NEPA ruling that forced the December 2024 plan restricting grazing to short seasons in above-average precipitation years..
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
A new fire management framework will control prescribed burns and wildfire response across Grand Canyon for years.
What’s at risk
Wildlife, native vegetation, Indigenous cultural resources, and visitor experience across Grand Canyon's millions of acres are all shaped by this plan. If the framework is flawed, it locks in fire management decisions with lasting consequences for the park's ecosystems and cultural heritage.
If this goes through
Once adopted, this programmatic agreement sets the governing rules for all prescribed burns and wildfire response at Grand Canyon, making it hard to reverse course even if problems emerge.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
4 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The Draft Programmatic Agreement will govern prescribed burns and wildfire response across millions of acres of Grand Canyon National Park, and such a sweeping framework deserves rigorous public scrutiny before it is finalized.
- This fire management plan affects Indigenous cultural resources within Grand Canyon National Park, and I urge the National Park Service to demonstrate how those resources will be protected under every fire management scenario.
- Prescribed burns and wildfire response decisions made under this Programmatic Agreement will shape native vegetation and wildlife habitat throughout the park, so the plan must clearly explain how ecological values will be preserved.
- I oppose finalizing this Programmatic Agreement until the National Park Service fully documents how each fire management alternative meets NEPA requirements for protecting Grand Canyon's wilderness, wildlife, and cultural resources.
Show all 6 points from the document
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
2026 Public Review and Comment - Draft Programmatic Agreement for Fire Management Plan
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksMore actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .