Coalition Comments on Proposed Parcels for BLM Montana-Dakotas January 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

July 24, 2025

Bureau of Land Management
Montana/Dakotas State Office
Attention: Hattie Payne
5001 Southgate Drive
Billings, MT 59101

Subject: Scoping comments on parcels under consideration for inclusion in the BLM Montana-Dakotas Q1 January 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0008-EA)

To whom it may concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these scoping comments on parcels under consideration for inclusion in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Montana-Dakotas 2026 First Quarter (January) Oil and Gas Lease Sale. The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition) is comprised of more than 4,500 members, all of whom are retired, former, or current National Park Service (NPS) employees or volunteers who collectively represent more than 50,000 years of national park management experience. The Coalition studies, educates, speaks and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System. The Coalition and our members are deeply invested in the protection of national parks, including in the management of public lands surrounding the parks, so that they can remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

As the BLM prepares for this lease sale and evaluates which parcels to offer for lease, the agency must continue to abide by its obligations under the law and existing policy, including the Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule¹ (Leasing Rule), which implements program reforms and provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act.² In carrying out this lease sale, the BLM must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

The January 2026 Oil & Gas Parcel List provided in Appendix A³ identifies 20 parcels, totaling 4,276.32 acres, which are proposed for leasing. For the reasons discussed in the letter below, we recommend that the BLM designate as “low preference” and therefore consider deferring the following two parcels that are in close proximity to Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP):

ND-2026-01-0826 (157.54 acres; located about 3 miles south of the TRNP boundary)
ND-2026-01-0864 (320 acres; located about 3.9 miles west of the TRNP boundary)

I. Oil and gas development is not compatible with the protection of the important natural, cultural, and recreational resources and values that are conserved within Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Established as Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park⁴ by act of Congress in 1947, the site preserves the landscape that inspired Theodore Roosevelt to adopt a conservation ethic. As president, he set aside more than 230 million acres of public land for future generations. In 1978, the area was given national park status when President Carter signed Public Law 95-625 that changed the memorial park to Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP). This same law also designated 29,920 acres⁵ of the park as Wilderness as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Under NPS planning guidelines, every unit of the National Park System is to have a Foundation Document that will provide basic guidance for planning and management decisions. The core components of a Foundation Document include a brief description of the park as well as the park’s purpose, significance, fundamental resources and values, other important resources and values, interpretive themes, and resource-related concerns including threats to park resources. The 2014 Foundation Document⁶ (Document) for TRNP identifies oil and gas development surrounding the park as TRNP’s “most significant parkwide issue.” The Document also identifies the park’s “fundamental resources and values” that are essential to protect, which include night skies, clean air, and wilderness qualities. These offer exceptional beauty, silence, and solitude, and encourage personal growth, inspiration, and healing, just as they did for Theodore Roosevelt in the 1880s. Specifically, protecting wilderness values is central to the purpose of the park and is a reflection of the conservation ethic advocated by Roosevelt. In addition to the designated wilderness, the park’s remote setting, natural soundscape, and rugged topography create a sense of solitude for visitors throughout the park’s three units.

Seventy-five (75) percent of the lands available for leasing in the Little Missouri National Grassland that borders TRNP on all sides have already been leased for oil and gas development.⁷ The Document repeatedly identifies “oil development on private, state, and federal lands around the park” as a significant threat to park resources and values. Specific statements of concern include the following:

Hydraulic fracturing technology has unleashed a wave of oil development on private, state, and federal lands around the park. This energy boom is expected to continue for decades. Many new people have moved into western North Dakota, bringing traffic, permanent and temporary residential developments, and social problems. Consequently, this boom is creating significant challenges for the park. (p. 5)
Widespread and Severe Impacts of Encroaching Energy Development and Associated Industrial Infrastructure. Oil and gas development in the surrounding area is the most significant parkwide issue. (Emphasis added) North Dakota is experiencing rapid oil and gas development in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Shale using hydraulic fracturing technology. The state now ranks second in the nation in total oil production, accounting for nearly 10% of all U.S. production. As of early 2014, there were approximately 10,000 producing wells in the state. McKenzie and Billings counties—where the park is located—account for roughly 25% of this total. It should be noted, however, that the number of producing wells in this region changes constantly. Other oil and gas deposits near the park are likely to become economically viable in the near future, including the Devonian Three Forks Formation and Pennsylvanian Tyler Formation. Altogether, North Dakota estimates another 40,000 wells will be drilled in the state during the coming decades. The implication is that oil and gas wells and infrastructure will continue to proliferate across the landscape surrounding the park. (p. 14)
The direct and indirect impacts on park resources and the visitor experience during seismic, drilling, and production activities include air emissions, increased noise, night sky degradation, and operations intruding upon the viewshed. Most notably, oil and gas wells, flares, and infrastructure are already present within the viewshed in all three park units. (Emphasis added) Infrastructure build-out and transportation issues—for example, each new well requires an average of 2,000 trucking events—create impacts well beyond the areas of drilling and production and affect the local communities, park visitors, and park staff. (p. 14)
The socioeconomic impacts of the “Bakken Boom” on the park and surrounding communities are already substantial. The population in the area has grown rapidly as people from across the United States have migrated to the region. For example, in McKenzie County, the population officially grew by nearly 60% between 2000 and 2012, from 5,737 to 7,987 people. However, there are currently more than 9,500 people living within a three-mile radius of the North Unit’s gateway town of Watford City, a town that consistently had approximately 1,700 people for many years. Currently, homeowner vacancy rates in the county are 0.4% and rental vacancy rates are 0%. Rapid development of rural and agricultural areas; increased semi-truck traffic on local roads; increased crime; increased costs for housing, goods, and services; strain on infrastructure such as storm and wastewater systems; and additional impacts to soil, water, and air resources affect areas adjacent to all three of the park’s units and its gateway communities. Housing availability and high costs have already affected the recruitment and retention of park staff, and very high occupancy rates and high prices in hotels prohibit many park visitors from staying near the park. (p. 14)
Identifying and responding to the effects of oil and gas development is highly taxing on the park’s managers and staff. For example, building cooperative relationships with adjacent landowners and federal and state agencies requires a substantial investment of staff resources. Participating in the public hearings held by local and state agencies is another vital, but time-consuming activity. Case-by-case mitigation of individual wells—which is typically accomplished by negotiating directly with drilling permit holders—has produced positive results, but is not sustainable. The potential demands on park staff become even more pronounced when the expected increase in the number of wells is considered . (p. 15) (Emphasis added)
Scenic Views and Clean Air. Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s night skies, clean air, and wilderness qualities offer exceptional beauty, silence, and solitude, which encourage personal growth, inspiration, and healing, just as they did for Theodore Roosevelt in the 1880s… At the boundaries of the park, energy development is negatively impacting viewsheds and air quality. Oil and gas wells, storage tanks, drill rigs, flares, and related infrastructure outside park boundaries are visible from all three units of the park… oil and gas development and the associated flares, wells, rigs, and road/highway noise are expected to continue for the next 20–30 years. Drilling activity is expanding and is currently affecting park resources and values in all three park units. Infrastructure build-out and transportation issues create impacts well beyond the areas of drilling and production and are affecting the local communities, park visitors, and park staff. Due to budget reductions and the associated staffing impacts, the park may lose its capacity to effectively evaluate the impacts of new oil and gas proposals and take proactive steps to mitigate impacts… Continued energy and industrial development around the park could degrade the park’s air quality, which would in turn degrade visibility of scenery, wildlife health, and visitor experience. Continued energy and industrial development around the park will continue to degrade park viewsheds and soundscapes. Direct and indirect impacts on park resources and visitor values during seismic, drilling, and production activities include air emissions, night sky degradation, and operations intruding upon the viewshed. (pp. 23-24) (Emphasis added)
The Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness and Wilderness Qualities Throughout the Park. Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s night skies, clean air, and wilderness qualities offer exceptional beauty, silence, and solitude, which encourage personal growth, inspiration, and healing, just as they did for Theodore Roosevelt in the 1880s… At the boundaries of the park energy development is negatively impacting soundscapes. Pump jack noise and diesel generators are audible at locations in the South Unit, both in wilderness and nonwilderness areas
. Semi-truck and railroad noise are clearly audible at multiple sites within the park, especially in the South Unit… Oil and gas development is increasing in the areas surrounding the park. It occurs in multiple locations and will continue for the foreseeable future… Energy development outside the park threatens the wilderness character of the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness as well as the quiet and chance for solitude in other areas of the park such as the Elkhorn Ranch. These threats impact the whole park but may be seen as especially damaging to designated wilderness because the National Park Service is legally required to manage for the preservation of wilderness character. The designated wilderness is relatively small and extends right to the boundary of the park in many places, which makes it especially susceptible to energy development impacts (energy development could be located a very short distance from, and within view of designated wilderness).
The character of the natural landscape (generally open, with few trees) also makes it susceptible to these impacts. (pp. 26-27) (Emphasis added)

In addition to the many concerns expressed in the Foundation Document, a 2017 study⁸ prepared on behalf of the National Park Service (NPS) found that “the damaging effects of [encroaching oil and gas development] on viewscapes, soundscapes, and air quality” contrast with the “solitude, quiet, and isolation of the prairie, the sense of vast openness, and the experience of black, starlit night” that characterize the park. NPS has also previously described oil and gas development taking place around the park as “widespread,” “severe” and “the most significant parkwide issue.” (Emphasis added)

While the potential of drilling a few more wells on parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864 near the park, as proposed inDOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0008-EA, may not individually cause a significant increase in the level of impacts, we are most concerned about the ongoing, incremental increases in cumulative impacts as the BLM allows more and more drilling near the TRNP boundary. As we write these scoping comments, there are two other BLM lease sale EAs that are further along in the BLM planning process, which, if approved, could also allow additional drilling near the park boundary. Steady, incremental increases in the amount of drilling surrounding TRNP, which was described as “widespread,” “severe” and “the most significant parkwide issue” in the 2014 Foundation Document, is still occurring today in 2025. The situation is not getting better, it is getting worse; due, in part, to BLM’s apparent prioritization of oil and gas leasing over protection of park resources and values when considering proposed lease parcels near the TRNP boundary.

II. The BLM cannot justify leasing under the so-called “national energy emergency” and must follow the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.

The so-called “national energy emergency” declared in Executive Order 14156, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,433 (Jan. 29, 2025), and the associated emergency procedures set forth in the “Alternative Arrangements for NEPA Compliance”⁹ (Emergency Procedures) are a transparent pretext to exempt fossil fuel leasing and development from environmental laws rather than a response to an actual energy emergency. The BLM cannot justify leasing based on the alleged national energy emergency, as it has already attempted in other lease sale processes.¹⁰ Nor can the agency utilize the Emergency Procedures to circumvent its obligations under NEPA.

The Emergency Procedures are unlawful for numerous reasons: (1) they are premised on the baseless and unsupported declaration of a “national energy emergency”; (2) they conflict with the Department of the Interior’s NEPA regulation on emergency responses; (3) they violate the Department’s public participation obligations; (4) they fail to conform to the requirements for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice and comment rulemaking; and (5) they are inconsistent with the timeframes and participation periods mandated by the BLM’s oil and gas leasing regulations. The Department must clarify that the Emergency Procedures cannot be used to approve onshore oil and gas leasing because, among other reasons, they are inconsistent with the timeframes and participation periods mandated by 43 C.F.R. § 3120.42(b). The BLM’s regulation contains no exceptions and requires the BLM to provide a 30-day scoping period, 30-day comment period, a Notice of Competitive Lease Sale at least 60 calendar days prior to the lease auction, and a 30-day protest period following the posting of the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale. The Emergency Procedures are inconsistent with these requirements and thus cannot be used to approve onshore oil and gas leasing.

The BLM’s recently issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2025-028 commands the agency to offer for lease “all eligible parcels”—regardless of leasing preference designation—based on the national energy emergency declaration.¹¹ This IM is unlawfully directing BLM offices to offer parcels for lease irrespective of conflicts—such as with wildlife habitat, cultural resources, or the other issues identified in the agency’s leasing preference criteria¹²—premised on the unlawful national energy emergency. As discussed in more depth below, to comply with the agency’s obligations pursuant to its own leasing regulations and the statutory requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and NEPA, the BLM must rescind this IM and disregard its invalid directives for this lease sale.

III. The BLM has authority to defer lease parcels—and must evaluate deferral of lease parcels—proposed for this sale.

The BLM is not mandated to offer for lease, or to issue leases for, any particular parcel for oil and gas development and production.¹³ Where conflicts with other uses exist, the BLM must analyze the deferral of lease parcels. The MLA does not contravene the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA’s) resource conservation requirements. Lands merely being designated as “open” for leasing under a particular Resource Management Plan (RMP) does not mean the BLM is “required” to lease them. Under FLPMA, the BLM must manage public lands according to “multiple use” and “sustained yield” and “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archeological values.” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7) & (8), 1712(c)(1), 1732(a). Multiple use obligates the agency to make the “most judicious use” of public lands and their resources to “best meet the present and future needs of the American people.” Id. § 1702(c). This requires taking “into account the long-term needs of future generations,” ensuring “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment.” Id. Sustained yield mandates “achiev[ing] and maint[aining] in perpetuity . . . a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” Id. § 1702(h) (emphasis added). The BLM must “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the lands.” Id. § 1732(b). “ It is past doubt that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to prioritize development over other uses. . . . Development is a possible use, which BLM must weigh against other possible uses including conservation to protect environmental values. . . .” New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM , 565 F.3d 683, 710 (10th Cir. 2009). (Emphasis added)

The BLM is therefore not obligated to lease any specific parcel of public land for oil and gas development. The agency retains the authority to defer lease sale parcels, even after bidding has concluded.¹⁴ Moreover, where conflicts with other uses exist, the agency must affirmatively evaluate deferral of parcels in its alternatives analysis under NEPA, as discussed below.

IV. The BLM must ensure leasing complies with FLPMA.

FLPMA creates a framework governing the BLM’s management of public lands.¹⁵ It provides for managing public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.¹⁶

Land use plans or Resource Management Plans (RMPs) project both the present and future use of the land. The BLM uses RMPs to identify which areas will be open to oil and gas leasing and development¹⁷ RMPs establish, among other things, “[l]and areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use,” “[a]llowable resource uses . . . and related levels of production or use to be maintained,” “[r]esource condition goals and objectives to be attained,” and “[p]rogram constraints and general management practices.”¹⁸

RMPs may grant the BLM authority to lease in certain areas.¹⁹ Before issuing leases, however, the agency must confirm that the applicable RMP is up to date and that the underlying environmental analysis will support a contemporary leasing decision. If an RMP is more than five years old, the BLM must reevaluate and confirm that the analysis and any underlying assumptions remain valid.²⁰ An RMP would no longer support a new leasing decision if important new data, policies, or changed circumstances exist that were not considered when it was approved.²¹ If an RMP is too old or stale to support a new leasing decision, the BLM must revise the RMP or undertake a new, thorough environmental analysis, such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to support new leasing.

In the environmental assessment released for the Montana-Dakotas 2025 Third Quarter (September) Oil and Gas Lease Sale, it is stated that, due to the 2025 North Dakota Field Office RMP having been enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, “the land use allocations (stipulations) will be in conformance with the prior resource management plan for the NDFO, the 1988 ND ARMP.”²²

If this lease sale is also to be carried out pursuant to the 1988 ND ARMP, the BLM should defer leasing in these areas until the agency can consider new inventories and analyze how best to protect the resources, given the age of the ARMP and its stale analysis. At the very least, the agency must undertake a thorough analysis that analyzes the potential impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative²³ ) that new leasing and development would have on sensitive resources.

V. The BLM must analyze the conservation and multiple use conflicts and environmental impacts associated with the proposed lease parcels under NEPA and FLPMA, along with evaluating the deferral of parcels based on such conflicts.

The BLM must evaluate the environmental impacts of this proposed lease sale under NEPA. NEPA fosters informed decision making by federal agencies and promotes informed public participation in government decisions.²⁴ As explained in the Leasing Rule’s preamble: “The preference criteria . . . were proposed consistent with the MLA to direct the BLM’s administrative resources to leasing tracts most likely to be developed, to reduce conflicts between oil and gas development and other public land uses that were not resolved in the resource management plans, and to ‘take[ ] into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources.’”²⁵ Moreover, the agency explained that it “will apply the criteria . . . consistent with the BLM’s existing policy and implementation of IM 2023–007, Evaluating Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Parcels for Future Lease Sales.” Although that IM has been rescinded, the Leasing Rule’s requirement that BLM will apply the preference criteria consistent with the principles in the IM remains. Those principles demand deferral of parcels with identified conflicts with the criteria, which should be designated as having low preference for leasing. If the BLM does move forward any parcels that receive a low preference designation, the agency must explain the specific reasons for doing so.

While the regulations give preference to leasing parcels on lands “upon which a prudent operator would seek to expand existing operations”²⁶ and on lands “with high potential for development,”²⁷ some of these areas risk further concentrating and expanding development, exacerbating ongoing and historical degradation to the affected area and other resource values that are present. We urge the BLM to not assign a “high” preference value to proposed lease parcels simply because they are in proximity to existing oil and gas development and/or are on lands with high development potential, if the proposed parcels are on lands where other sensitive resources are present.

Determining leasing preference also requires the BLM to evaluate the obligation “to take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.”²⁸ The BLM has defined “unnecessary or undue degradation” as:

harm to resources or values that is not necessary to accomplish a use’s stated goals or is excessive or disproportionate to the proposed action or an existing disturbance. Unnecessary or undue degradation includes two distinct elements: “Unnecessary degradation” means harm to land resources or values that is not needed to accomplish a use’s stated goals. For example, approving a proposed access road causing damage to critical habitat for a plant listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act that could be located without any such impacts and still provide the needed access may result in unnecessary degradation. “Undue degradation” means harm to land resources or values that is excessive or disproportionate to the proposed action or an existing disturbance. For example, approving a proposed access road causing damage to the only remaining critical habitat for a plant listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, even if there is not another location for the road, may result in undue degradation. The statutory obligation to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” applies when either unnecessary degradation or undue degradation, and not necessarily both, is implicated.²⁹

The BLM must explain how it is meeting this obligation with the parcels it moves forward in a lease sale and how application of the preference criteria do or do not fulfill this obligation to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2025-028³⁰ issued on May 8, 2025 directs BLM offices to offer for lease “all eligible parcels” for lease including “low preference parcels on its sales even when there are high preference parcels.” The premise for this directive is based on the so-called “national energy emergency” declared in Executive Order (EO) 14156, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,433 (Jan. 29, 2025). In our view, the EO is a transparent pretext to boost fossil fuel leasing and development in the absence of any apparent market-driven or national security based need to do so. And, in effect, the resulting IM unlawfully directs BLM offices to offer “all eligible parcels” for lease irrespective of conflicts—such as with wildlife habitat, cultural resources, or the other issues identified in the agency’s leasing preference criteria, see 43 C.F.R. § 3120.32—based on a fictional national energy emergency. While the IM may be derived, in part, from the EO, we do not recall there being a public comment opportunity on the IM and will therefore share our thoughts about it here.

First, offering for lease ALL nominated parcels regardless of level of preference and regardless of conflicts with and/or the severity of adverse impacts to other uses and protected resources is fundamentally irresponsible and potentially unlawful management. The BLM has never defined “eligible” lands in its regulations,³¹ only vaguely referring to “eligible” lands in its competitive leasing manual as those “not excluded from leasing by a statutory or regulatory prohibition.”³² This eligibility determination is very general in nature and has been performed before the BLM has actually examined what specific resource conflicts might exist for nominated parcels. The BLM cannot ascertain those conflicts until it conducts the environmental analysis and examines resource conflicts for the specific parcels at issue for a particular sale. Thus, the IM’s directive to move forward all “eligible” parcels binds the agency to offering parcels for lease irrespective of their resource conflicts. This violates the BLM’s obligations under FLPMA.

The IM also fails to recognize that lands must not only be “eligible” for leasing but also “available.”³³ In its manual, the BLM notes that lands are “available for leasing when they are open to leasing in the applicable [RMP], and when all statutory requirements and reviews have been met, including compliance with [NEPA].”³⁴ By requiring that all lands the BLM determines are “eligible” be leased, without also determining whether acreage is “available,” the IM violates both the MLA and the agency’s own regulations.

For this lease sale, the BLM must disregard the IM’s unlawful directives when analyzing parcels. Rather, the agency must consider whether to defer—and, if conflicts exists, must defer—parcels based on the leasing preference criteria and the agency’s other statutory and regulatory obligations.

As summarized in Section III above, the BLM has a legal obligation under NEPA³⁵ to evaluate the environmental impacts of its proposed actions, including the leasing of parcels for oil and gas development. FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands for “multiple use”³⁶ in order to “best meet the future needs of the American people” and make “the most judicious use of the land,”³⁷ including by preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.³⁸

When properly applying the preference criteria established in 43 C.F.R. § 3120.32, we believe that the BLM’s “preference for leasing” analysis can and often does successfully differentiate between parcels that, if developed for oil and gas production, would cause relatively few conflicts and/or adverse impacts to other uses and resources vs. parcels that, if developed, would cause significant foreseeable conflicts and adverse impacts. Consistent with FLMPA’s conservation requirements, parcels that the BLM has determined through its NEPA and lease preference analyses would conflict with and/or cause adverse impacts to other uses and resources should be considered for deferral. The BLM cannot reasonably justify or defend leasing low preference parcels if/when the BLM’s own analyses indicate that such conflicts and adverse impacts are expected to occur.

For the reasons discussed below and in accordance with existing BLM policy and the law, we recommend that the BLM designate at least two of the proposed parcels as having low preference for leasing, and should consider deferring them from the BLM Montana-Dakotas 2026 First Quarter (January) Oil and Gas Lease Sale. The two parcels that merit low preference for leasing because of their proximity to TRNP are: ND-2026-01-0826; and ND-2026-01-0864.

The following section discusses the environmental analyses we urge the BLM to include in its forth coming NEPA review and associated parcel deferral recommendations.

VII. The BLM must analyze the impacts of leasing parcels adjacent to and in close proximity to Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and should consider deferring parcels where oil and gas development would impact the wilderness characteristics and recreational, historical, and wildlife habitat resources present within TRNP.

Two parcels under consideration for inclusion in this sale are in close proximity to Theodore Roosevelt National Park, a national park that hosts open range populated by bison, horses, elk, prairie dogs, and other wildlife, numerous recreation trails, expansive views of the Great Plains, and clear, dark night skies. Parcel ND-2026-01-0826 is located approximately 3 miles south of the TRNP wilderness boundary in the North Unit of the park. Parcel ND-20226-01-0864 is located approximately 3.9 miles west of the TRNP wilderness boundary in the North Unit of the park.

The BLM must provide a full analysis of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of development of the proposed lease parcels.to the recreational and historical resources, air quality, wildlife habitat, and wilderness character present within Theodore Roosevelt National Park. As a unit of the National Park System, TRNP is managed under the NPS Organic Act³⁹ as a special conservation area whose fundamental purpose is:

…to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (Emphasis added)

This directive is commonly referred to as the NPS “conservation mandate”; and as explained in NPS Management Policies⁴⁰ Section 1.4.3:

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 addition, as a Class 1 area under the Clean Air Act⁴¹ TRNP is afforded the highest level of air quality protection. Similarly, under the Wilderness Act of 1964⁴² the federally-designated Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area is afforded the highest level of protection for preserving the area’s “wilderness character.” Oil and gas development in close vicinity to the park boundary can and does adversely affect the park’s air quality and wilderness character, as well as negatively impacting the visitor experience by intruding on visual resources, risking harm to the park’s historical resources, and threatening the populations of sensitive wildlife that inhabit the area.

The term “wilderness character” was first referenced in the 1964 Wilderness Act⁴³ The Act states that federal agencies, like the NPS, are responsible for preserving the wilderness character of wilderness areas. The NPS describes wilderness character⁴⁴ as:

…a holistic concept based on the interaction of (1) biophysical environments primarily free from modern human manipulation and impact, (2) personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society, and (3) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence that inspire human connection with nature…Wilderness character also includes five tangible qualities associated with the biophysical environment:

- - - - Natural Quality. Ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.
      - Untrammeled Quality. Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from the intentional actions of modern human control or manipulation.
      - Undeveloped Quality. Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds of modern human occupation.
      - Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality. Wilderness provides opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
      - Other Features of Value Quality. Wilderness may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

At TRNP, natural sounds and dark night skies are particularly important elements of wilderness character that contribute to the wilderness area’s undeveloped quality. Between 2012 and 2015, the NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division (NSNSD) conducted an acoustic monitoring study⁴⁵ at TRNP. The goal of the study was to establish a baseline inventory of the soundscape at the park. The study found:

The most common sources of “noise” [human caused sound] at [TRNP] include vehicles, aircraft, and motors (distant low frequency sounds, likely associated with oil and gas machinery). (p. vii) (Emphasis added)
The mean 24 hour percent time audibility of anthropogenic noise across all acoustic monitoring sites was 69.81% and a detailed analysis of audibility at the sites found that aircraft, motors (such as those associated with compressor stations) and vehicles contributed the most significant amounts of noise. From these results, it is unlikely that a visitor to [TRNP] can experience a significant time period completely free from anthropogenic noise. (p. 25) Emphasis added)
The acoustic monitoring results indicate that anthropogenic noise has raised ambient sound levels within the park. As might be expected, increases are largest near portions of the park near major traffic corridors, such as the area around the Buckhorn Trail. However, impacts are also measurable in more remote areas of the park such as the Elkhorn Unit and designated wilderness areas in both the North and South Units. (p. 25) (Emphasis added)
Due to the low natural and existing ambient levels, the acoustic environment at [TRNP] is particularly susceptible to degradation from even relatively low dB sources [such as noise associated with oil and gas machinery]. (pp. 25-26) (Emphasis added)

Regarding the park’s dark night skies, according to the TRNP website⁴⁶:

Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a great place to view the night sky. The park is over 30 miles from the nearest large city, so very little light interference affects night sky viewing allowing for better visibility of stars and other astronomical phenomena.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a great place to view the night sky, but, like other areas, there are threats to its relative darkness. Light pollution from oil and gas development surrounding the park is visible in some areas. Nearby towns including Medora, Belfield, and Watford City also produce light that limit the number of stars that can be seen. (Emphasis added)
Increased light pollution may have negative effects beyond the impacts to stargazing. Light pollution may affect the ability for nocturnal animals, such as some owls, to function normally.

Despite these well documented concerns about potential impacts of drilling operations on natural sounds, dark night skies, and other wilderness characteristics at TRNP, the BLM continues to offer lease parcels in close proximity to the park’s wilderness boundary while providing little in the way of meaningful analysis of impacts to wilderness character. For example, in two recent lease sale EAs(DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0001-EA and DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0003-EA), the Montana-Dakotas Office of the BLM evaluated lease parcels located along or in close proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area (TRWA) boundary in the North Unit of TRNP. In terms of evaluating potential impacts to TRNP in those two EAs, the park is mentioned only briefly in Sections 1.5.5.4 Visual Resources and 1.5.5.5 Recreation, which provide short, but not detailed, analyses of potential impacts to those two impact topics.

However, these two EAs provided no acknowledgement or analysis of potential impacts to the park’s wilderness characteristics. In fact, Table 1.2 in each EA, which identifies “Issues Considered but not Analyzed in this EA” excludes “[l]ands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs)”from analysis because “[t]here are no LWCs within or near the nominated lease parcels. Therefore, analysis of potential effects on LWCs is not warranted.” (Emphasis added) In both EAs the dismissive statement that “there are no LWCs within or near the nominated lease parcels” is patently false, as there were parcels proposed for leasing in both EAs that either abutted or were within 1 mile of the TRNP North Unit wilderness boundary. Because the LWC impact topic was “not analyzed,” the two BLM EAs did not provide meaningful analysis about potential impacts to wilderness character within the TRNP wilderness area.

We therefore request that potential impacts to TRNP wilderness character be disclosed and analyzed in the forthcoming DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0008-EA. We acknowledge that the potential adverse impacts of BLM allowing drilling of only a new well or two on any individual parcel may not rise to the level of “significant.” However, as described in Section I above, we are very concerned about the cumulative impacts of the BLM allowing more and more drilling near the park over the course of many years. As we write these scoping comments, there are currently two other BLM lease sale proposals under consideration which, if approved, would allow additional drilling near the park boundary. The incremental, ongoing increases in the number of drilling operations surrounding TRNP, which were characterized in the park’s Foundation Document in 2014 as “the most significant parkwide issue,” is still occurring in 2025. The situation is not getting better, it is getting worse! From a long-term resource conservation and avoidance of conflicts perspective, it would be prudent management for the BLM, as a sister conservation agency to the NPS within the Department of the Interior, to take a serious look at the cumulative effects that the BLM’s leasing practices are causing to wilderness character and other protected resources within Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

In addition to the above concern about cumulative impacts, we note with concern that Appendix B⁴⁷ , which lists Stipulation Definitions for the Q1 January 2026 lease sale, contains no (zero, zip, nada) stipulations related to the protection of resources and values, including air quality and wilderness characteristics, within TRNP. We imagine this may be due the court enjoining the 2025 North Dakota Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), as described on pages 40-41of Appendix K⁴⁸, DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0001-EA. In the absence of the enjoined 2025 RMP, the BLM will now rely on the outdated 1988 North Dakota RMP⁴⁹ for provide stipulations for oil and gas development. The RMP’s Appendix C⁵⁰ for provide stipulations for oil and gas development. The RMP’s Appendix C⁵¹ on Oil and Gas Stipulations and Leasing Restrictions provides no stipulations (zero, zip, nada) specific to oil and gas leasing near the national park boundary. In essence, instead of applying the modest park-related stipulations described in the 2024 RMP, the BLM will be defaulting to “no guidance” and “no stipulations” regarding potential impacts to TRNP that is provided in the 1988 RMP. The resulting lack of any park-specific stipulations provided under a reasonably current RMP is further cause for the BLM to consider deferring the parcels identified earlier in this letter.

We also note with concern that the parcel maps for ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-20226-01-0864 in Appendix C⁵² do NOT show any lands managed by the NPS and thus do NOT show the true proximity of these two parcels to the TRNP wilderness boundary. Based on a partner organization’s GIS mapping capability, we know that that the TRNP boundary is literally just off the edge of both of the BLM parcel maps. The failure of these maps to show just how close the two parcels are to the national park boundary is not only concerning, it is misleading whether intentional or not. We therefore ask that the BLM adjust the scale or the center point of the maps slightly in order to show the adjacent TRNP boundary along the edge of the respective map images.

VIII. Within the Department of the Interior, the Secretary and thus the BLM have an “absolute duty” to protect national park resources and values from BLM-managed activities on public lands adjacent to Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

In light of the many concerns summarized above, we respectfully remind the BLM that in contrast to the BLM’s “multiple use mandate” under FLPMA⁵³ national park resources and values, such as those identified in the park’s Foundation Document, are protected under the “conservation mandate” of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and subsequent amendments. As described in NPS Management Polices 2006⁵⁴ Section 1.4.1, “the most important statutory directive for the NPS is provided by interrelated provisions of the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, including an amendment to the latter law enacted in 1978 and commonly referred to as “the Redwood amendment.” The key management-related provision of the Organic Act (54 USC § 100101(a)) is as follows:

[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified… by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is 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)

As described Management Policies 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 further explained in Management Policies Section 1.4.3:

To further reinforce the point that the Secretary and therefore the Department and its bureaus such as the BLM have a “absolute duty” to protect national park resources and values from BLM-managed activities on public lands adjacent to TRNP, it has been a longstanding opinion of the DOI Office of the Solicitor that “the Secretary of the Interior has the legal authority to reject the applications for mineral exploration if the record supports a finding that mineral development activities that might eventually follow exploration could be detrimental to the resources or values of a [national] park unit.”⁵⁵

IX. Deferring parcels adjacent to Theodore Roosevelt National Park from this sale is consistent with previous BLM actions taken in 2018 and 2025.

Deferring these two parcels from leasing now would be consistent with the precedent established by the BLM in 2018 during the first Trump Administration in which the BLM deferred a parcel adjacent to the North Unit of TRNP from leasing due to concerns about potential impacts to park resources and values, including wilderness characteristics. The Coalition and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) submitted joint comments⁵⁶ about that proposed lease sale expressing significant concerns about impacts to TRNP and the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness. The deferral decision is described on the BLM E-Planning website⁵⁷ under the NEPA identifier DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2017-0133-EA. Because the current leasing proposal involves two parcels, not just one as in the 2018 deferral, it seems likely that the current proposed action could have a similar or greater level of adverse effects on TRNP resources and values than the proposed parcel that was deferred in 2018.

Similarly, the BLM has recently decided to temporarily defer parcels ND-2025-09-6879 and ND-2025-09-6880, as part of the Montana-Dakotas Q3 September 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0001-EA). The explanation for the deferral provided in Appendix K⁵⁸ (pp.41-42) of the lease sale EA states, in part:

Similar to the North Dakota March 2018 Lease Sale, the BLM has decided to temporarily defer parcels ND-2025-09-6879 and ND-2025-09-6880, due to the unavailability of 2025 ND ARMP stipulations (enjoined on June 18, 2025) and the time needed to thoroughly consider the comments on the EA (before the required posting dates for the lease sale process), and time needed for any potential additional analysis required to respond to comments.

For the reasons described above, we urge the BLM to defer parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864 in the vicinity of TRNP. However, if the BLM decides to proceed with further evaluating the potential leasing of these three parcels when it prepares the environmental assessment (EA), we offer the following recommendations:

The EA should identify and evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of noise, light pollution, and visual intrusion to wilderness character within TRNP.
BLM should invite the NPS to participate as a cooperating agency for the express purpose of assisting BLM with the analysis of potential impacts to park resources and values within TRNP.

X. Conclusion

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Should you have any questions about our comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Phil Francis Signature

Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Chair of the Executive Council
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks

Email: Ed****@********ps.org

Mail: 2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Unit 77436, Washington, DC 20013

Web: www.protectnps.org

Phone: (202) 819-8622

1
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/23/2024-08138/fluid-mineral-leases-and-leasing-process
2
See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. §§ 50262–50263 (2022).
3
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20136954/251036934/Appendix%20A%20Q1%202026%20Lease%20Sale%20Parcels%20and%20Stips.pdf
4
NPS, Theodore Roosevelt National Park History, available at https://nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/park-history.htm
5
NPS, Theodore Roosevelt National Park Acreage by Unit, available at https://home.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/park-acreage-by-unit.htm
6
NPS, April 2014 Theodore Roosevelt National Park Foundation Document, available at https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf
7
SDA, Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas Leasing, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd1082964.pdf
8
NPS, January 2017 Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota Historic Resource Study, available at http://www.npshistory.com/publications/thro/hrs.pdf
9
See Dep’t of the Interior, Alternative Arrangements for NEPA Compliance (Apr. 2025), https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04/alternative-arrangements-nepa-during-national-energy-emergency-2025-04-23-signed_1.pdf; Dep’t of the Interior, Department of the Interior Implements Emergency Permitting Procedures to Strengthen Domestic Energy Supply (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-implements-emergency-permitting-procedures-strengthen-domestic
10
See, e.g., BLM, BLM Utah 2025 Third Quarter Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2025-00001-EA at 17 (May 2025), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2036690/200641746/20133504/251033484/DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2025-00001-EA%20Public%20Scoping.pdf (“[R]emoval of parcels from lease consideration would not contribute to the fulfillment of EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy.”).
11
BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., INSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM 2025-028: OIL AND GAS LEASING – LAND USE PLANNING AND LEASE PARCEL REVIEWS 5 (May 8, 2025).
12
See 43 C.F.R. § 3120.32.
13
See Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 4 (1965) (“The Mineral Leasing Act [MLA] of 1920 . . . left the Secretary discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract.”); United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419 (1931) (ruling that the Interior Secretary possesses “general powers over the public lands as guardian of the people,” which include the authority to deny oil and gas lease applications); Mont. Wildlife Fed’n v. Haaland, 127 F.4th 1, 44–45 (9th Cir. 2025) (“We note that there is no doubt that the government has the authority affirmatively to determine which parcels shall be offered for oil and gas leasing . . . .”); Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he Mineral Leasing Act gives the Interior Secretary discretion to determine which lands are to be leased under the statute. . . . Thus refusing to issue the . . . leases . . . would constitute a legitimate exercise of the discretion granted to the Interior Secretary under that statute.”).
14
See McDonald v. Clark, 771 F.2d 460, 463 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding that the “fact that land has been offered for lease does not bind the Secretary to actually lease the land, nor is the Secretary bound to lease the land when a qualified applicant has been selected”); see also W. Energy All. v. Salazar, No. 10-cv-0226, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98380, at *9–23 (D. Wyo. June 29, 2011) (holding that BLM is not required to issue leases after offering them at auction; it only needs to make a decision within 60 days on whether to issue the leases).
15
See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1772.
16
See id. § 1732(a).
17
See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n).
18
Id.; see 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). FLPMA prohibits the BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of RMPs. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (“All future resource management authorizations and actions . . . shall conform to the approved plan.”).
19
See 30 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-2(a).
20
See 42 U.S.C. § 4336b.
21
See H-1601-1 — LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK, SECTION VII.C, DETERMINING WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO REVISE AN RMP; 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-6.
22
See, e.g., BLM, BLM Montana-Dakotas Oil and Gas Lease Sale Quarter 3 2025 Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-00001-EA at 3 (July 2025),https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20138016/251037996/Draft%20EA%20MTDKs%20Q3%202025%20Lease%20Sale%20Protest%20Period.pdf (“On June 18, 2025, between the comment period and the protest period for the Quarter 3, September 2025 oil and gas lease sale, the 2025 NDFO RMP was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. See North Dakota v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00042 (D. N.D. June 18, 2025). Accordingly, the land use allocations (stipulations) will be in conformance with the prior resource management plan for the NDFO, the 1988 ND ARMP.”).
23
Courts have consistently held that NEPA’s mandate includes considering cumulative effects. See, e.g., Swain v. Brinegar, 542 F.2d 364, 369–70 (7th Cir. 1976); Henry v. Federal Power Commission, 513 F.2d 395, 406 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 824 (5th Cir. 1975); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972).
24
See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983).
25
89 Fed. Reg. 30,916, 30,919 (Apr. 23, 2024) (quoting 43 U.S.C. §1702).
26
43 C.F.R. § 3120.32(a).
27
43 C.F.R. § 3120.32(e).
28
43 U.S.C. § 1732(b).
29
43 C.F.R. § 6101.2(aa).
30
https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2025-028
31
See, e.g., 89 Fed. Reg. at 30,924.
32
BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., BLM MANUAL MS-3120 COMPETITIVE LEASES (P) at 6 (Feb. 18, 2013).
33
30 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); see 43 C.F.R. § 3120.11 (“All lands eligible and available for leasing may be offered for competitive auction . . . .” (emphases added)).
34
BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., BLM MANUAL MS-3120 COMPETITIVE LEASES (P) at 6.
35
42 USC CH. 45.
36
FLPMA § 102(a)(7), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7)-(8), 1702(c), 1702(h).
37
Id. at § 103(c).
38
43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b).
39
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title54/subtitle1&edition=prelim
40
NPS 2006 Management Policies, available at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf
41
42 USC Chapter 85.
42
16 USC Chapter 23
43
Id.
44
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/wilderness/wilderness-character.htm
45
https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/549138
46
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/nature/lightscape.htm
47
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20136953/251036933/Appendix%20B%20Q1%20January%202026%20Lease%20Stipulation%20Definitions.pdf
48
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20137996/251037976/Appendix%20K%20September%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
49
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/68341/510
50
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123134/finalappendixc.pdf
51
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123134/finalappendixc.pdf
52
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20136910/251036890/Appendix%20C%20Q1%20’26%20Lease%20Sale%20Maps.pdf
53
FLPMA § 102(a)(7), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7)-(8), 1702(c), 1702(h).
54
NPS 2006 Management Policies, available at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf
55
See DOI Solicitor Opinion # M-36993,# which is commonly referred to as “the Doe Run opinion.”
56
CPANP, Coalition Comments on Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Near Theodore Roosevelt NP (October 29, 2017), available at https://protectnps.org/2017/11/01/coalition-comments-on-proposed-oil-and-gas-leasing-near-theodore-roosevelt-np/
57
BLM, March 13, 2018 Oil and Gas Lease Sale, available at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/87486/510
58
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20137996/251037976/Appendix%20K%20September%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf