Chiricahua's Park Law Renames 12,025 Acres and Writes In Tribal Access
A signed law renamed Chiricahua National Monument a park without adding land, a fee or money. Its one new duty, tribal access, echoes language Apache tribes requested in 2024.
Armand Santilli of Casa Grande was on his first visit to Chiricahua when he "literally wandered into Tuesday's invitation-only ceremony," the Arizona Daily Star reported. He posed with officials and left with "a sticker. From the secretary of Interior." His explanation: I just saw a lot of people with fancy (park ranger) hats on, so I thought it might be something important.
It was. On Tuesday afternoon, Oct. 20, a president had signed a law renaming the place Santilli was standing in, and left its land and boundaries exactly as they were.
H.R. 6380, the Chiricahua National Park Act, redesignated Chiricahua National Monument as the 64th U.S. national park and Arizona's fourth, on the same 12,025 acres. It carries over the money the monument already had, adds none, and creates one real new duty: protecting traditional tribal cultural and religious sites.
Chiricahua National Monument has officially been redesignated as a national park, becoming America’s 64th national park.
— National Park Service (@NatlParkService) October 21, 2026
Known as the “Wonderland of Rocks,” this spectacular Arizona landscape was shaped by massive volcanic eruptions and years of erosion, creating the towering… pic.twitter.com/79CC3TEO2M
Read as a product spec, that is a short document. "National park" is a brand with enormous pull, and the statute swaps the label while leaving the contents alone. The brand arrives first. The staff and money that would make it mean something have to come later, and the first test is the spring crowd.
A 1924 proclamation became a 2026 statute
The mechanism explains the wait. President Calvin Coolidge created Chiricahua National Monument under Proclamation 1692 on April 18, 1924, on less than 4,300 acres. A president can do that alone, under the Antiquities Act. A national park is different: the Washington Post notes that parks "can only be declared by Congress," and the Western National Parks Association, cited by AFAR, says Congress "generally" does so.
Arizona's other parks all began as monuments: Grand Canyon took 11 years, Petrified Forest 56 and Saguaro 61. Chiricahua took 102.
The road was long. Then-Rep. Martha McSally, a Republican, introduced a Chiricahua bill in 2016, and per the Post, similar bills followed in every session after. Sen. Mark Kelly's S. 1320 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on March 31, 2022, and did not become law. Rep. Juan Ciscomani's H.R. 1479 arrived in March 2023 and got a House hearing on Sept. 18, 2024.
The bill that finally became law, H.R. 6380, was introduced in December 2025 by Ciscomani and Rep. Greg Stanton, a Democrat. Kelly and Sen. Ruben Gallego filed the Senate companion on Jan. 30, 2026. The House passed it by voice vote on March 16, and the Senate cleared it by unanimous consent on Wednesday, Sept. 30. The signature came 20 days later.
Is this really the first new park in "six years"? Nearly. New River Gorge became a national park and preserve by law on Dec. 27, 2020, so the gap to Oct. 20, 2026 is 5 years, 9 months and 23 days. The difference in kind matters more: New River Gorge was already a national river, and its law allowed expansion, per the Park Service. Chiricahua gains no land at all.
The table below summarizes the enrolled text of H.R. 6380.
| Question | What the law or NPS says |
|---|---|
| Name | The monument "shall be known and designated as 'Chiricahua National Park'" (Sec. 2(a)(1)) |
| Land | Same boundaries as the monument on the day of enactment; 12,025 acres (Sec. 2(a)(2); NPS) |
| Money | Funds already available to the monument carry over (Sec. 2(a)(4)); CBO reportedly estimated under $500,000 over five years (Modern Campground), subject to appropriation |
| Management | Interior administers under the 1924 and 1938 proclamations plus general National Park System law (Sec. 2(b)) |
| Tribes | Protect traditional cultural and religious sites, consult tribes, provide access, close small areas on tribal request (Sec. 3) |
| Entry | No entrance or parking fee; the park sells no passes (NPS fees page, Oct. 21) |
The one new duty traces to Sept. 18, 2024
Section 3 is the only substantive new directive in the law, and its language tracks a 2024 request. San Carlos Apache Tribe Deputy Attorney General Justine R. Jimmie testified to a House subcommittee on Sept. 18, 2024, on Ciscomani's earlier bill. She spoke of her own Chiricahua ancestors, and did not hedge about what a park could do.
A designation, she said, "would significantly increase foot and vehicular traffic and result in related infrastructure development on this land, jeopardizing tribal cultural resources, including burial sites and ceremonial areas, viewsheds, sight-lines, landscapes, and animal/plant life." Then she asked Congress for a "SEC. 3. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITES," which she called "essentially streamlined language from the Valles Caldera National Preserve."
Her reasoning was about discretion: existing law bars destroying tribal sites, but park personnel "have broad latitude and discretion," and:
"current law forces tribes to plead for permission for access to an area that was ancestrally our home."
Justine R. Jimmie, Deputy Attorney General, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Sept. 18, 2024
Put her proposal beside the enacted Section 3 and the match is close. The Secretary "shall ensure the protection of traditional cultural and religious sites," "shall consult with Indian Tribes," "shall provide access" and "may, on request of an Indian Tribe, temporarily close to general public use one or more specific areas." The law adds a limit she did not propose: closures must be the "smallest practicable area for the minimum period necessary." The language San Carlos Apache (with Mescalero Apache) asked for in 2024 is, in substance, now statute. The statute says "Indian Tribes," not "Apache," and its access provisions run through Public Law 95-341, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
What the tribes think is less clear. KJZZ reported on Oct. 2 that, "Historically, tribes like San Carlos, Mescalero and Fort Sill Apache have not backed the national park designation in Cochise County." Ciscomani told the station he and Stanton assured Apache leaders their right to worship would not be infringed. That addressed most of their concerns on this — enough to not oppose this anymore, because they're a key player.
AFAR wrote that the Apache tribes "did not participate in the redesignation effort," though San Carlos Apache testified at the 2024 hearing and Mescalero Apache submitted testimony.
Two pieces by one park-ranger writer, published at Modern Campground and Yahoo Creators, say the tribes "support" the move without sourcing it, but "not oppose" and "support" are different things. As of Oct. 22, no tribal statement on the signing or the new park had surfaced in the coverage reviewed. Per the testimony, the 1872 reservation for the Chiricahuas under Cochise contained this area until President Grant ended it in 1876, which is the history under all of it.
Nothing in the law adds money, land or a fee
The park's fees page says "Chiricahua National Park does not have entrance or parking fees" and, "Since there is no entrance fee, the park does not sell passes." The campground still charges and takes reservations. The statute is silent on fees, and 86% of the acreage remains wilderness, per the Park Service.
Money is where marketing and law part ways. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, speaking at the ceremony, called the name "one of the most powerful brands in America," the Daily Star reported, and said "All those budgets get bigger once you become a national park." The statute says only that "any funds available for the Chiricahua National Monument shall be available for the National Park." Modern Campground reported that the Congressional Budget Office estimated implementation would cost less than $500,000 over five years, mostly for tribal consultation, and the law itself adds no land.
Burgum himself drew the line. If 70,000 people visited in 2025, he said, "that number's gonna go way up," and "then we have to back that up with support staffing, dollars for infrastructure and programming." That is a promise, not a line in this statute.
The critics' case is that staffing was already thin. Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, said of Chiricahua, "it is most likely understaffed," and the Daily Star reports the group's figure as a 24% nationwide staffing drop in the first six months of Burgum's tenure. Former Grand Canyon and Saguaro superintendent Rob Arnberger called it "inexcusable for our Interior Secretary to trumpet a new national park designation while he refuses to take care of the places that his department has been charged with stewarding for more than a century."
The other side has an answer. Ciscomani, who sits on House Appropriations, says the position "puts us in a good position to make sure that this is well-funded." Jessica Bowron, who exercises the Park Service director's delegated authority, said, "While its name is changing, our commitment remains the same." Both are pledges, not numbers.
Planning a visit around the March crowd
The record year was 1993, with 127,840 visits, and Interior says about 70,000 came in 2025. The park has handled a crowd 83% bigger than today's. What is new is a different kind of visitor, and critics say the staff is thin.
Growth claims vary. Willcox Mayor Greg Hancock says communities that go from monument to park "have seen about a 20 percent increase in visitation," ABC15 reported. National Parks Conservation Association research, as cited by Modern Campground and Yahoo Creators, found "an average of 21%" among eight monuments in the five years after they became parks. Even 20% on 70,000 gives 84,000, well under the record.
The pinch is the calendar, not the total. According to NPS visitor statistics, most visitors come between Feb. 15 and April 15, and "20% of visitors come in the month of March alone." In March, the Park Service says, you may share the park and its parking lots with 300 to 500 people a day. As arithmetic, not a forecast: 20% of 70,000 is 14,000 people over 31 days, about 450 a day, and a 20% rise would add roughly 90 more each March day. August, by contrast, "can average just 60 visitors per day!" Summer highs run in the 80s and 90s; winter lows are often near or below freezing. The top of the park, near Sugarloaf Mountain, "can be 5-10 degrees cooler and windier" than the visitor center.
Willcox has reasons to want crowds. In 2017, the Park Service says, visitors "spent $3.7 million in the local gateway communities," supporting 52 jobs. That is about $59 a visitor, so 14,000 more people would mean roughly $820,000 a year at 2017 prices. Hancock said: "We weren't looking to simply put a name on a sign."
Not everyone nearby is cheering. Pearce resident Cheryl Knott, quoted by the East Arizona Courier, said earlier this year that groundwater is the only water source in the Willcox basin and that lodging would add demand.
Getting there takes planning. The park is about 120 miles southeast of Tucson, with one entrance. From Willcox, take I-10 to Highway 186 South for 32 miles ("winding and hilly"), then Highway 181. From the south, Highway 191 meets 181 in Sunizona, about 26 miles out. Willcox and Sunizona are the last towns with gas and basic supplies, and there is no rideshare. Vehicles over 24 feet cannot go past the campground.
Inside, an 8-mile scenic drive runs to Massai Point and Echo Canyon, with 17 miles of trails. Echo Canyon Trail is "a moderate loop hike" with a grotto; AFAR measures the loop at 3.3 miles. Heart of Rocks Loop is "a strenuous hike" past balancing rocks, 8-plus miles in the Park Service's shuttle notes, and that shuttle "is not running as of fall 2025." Bicycles and e-bikes are not allowed on trails. Dogs are welcome at Silver Spur Meadow and Bonita Creek. At Faraway Ranch, a former guest ranch, the dining-room fireplace is "composed of stones carved by Buffalo Soldiers."
The park has a new name, a new sign and a law. Its passport stamp, the Park Service says, "is in production," and "We do not mail passport stamps."
