Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the BLM Montana-Dakotas January 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

Submitted via: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2039217/595/8021484/comment

September 8, 2025

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

Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the BLM Montana-Dakotas 2026 First Quarter (January) Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0008-EA).

To whom it may concern:

I am writing on behalf of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), which represents over 4,700 current, former, and retired employees and volunteers of the National Park Service. Collectively, our membership represents over 50,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. Our members include former National Park Service directors, deputy directors, regional directors, and park superintendents, as well as a variety of program specialists and field staff. Recognized as the Voices of Experience, the Coalition educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation and protection of the National Park System, and mission-related programs of the National Park Service (NPS).

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (draft EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft FONSI) concerning the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana–Dakotas State Office (MTDKs) proposed First Quarter (Q1) January 2026 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. 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 regulations and policies, including the Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule (Leasing Rule)¹, which implements program reforms and provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. In carrying out this lease sale, the BLM must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

I. Introduction

The BLM MTDKs has issued a Draft EA and Draft FONSI documenting a review of 20 parcels, totaling 4,276.32 acres, nominated for the MTDKs Quarter 1 2026 lease sale (the Proposed Action). The Proposed Action includes two nominated lease parcels that are approximately 3 miles (parcel ND-2026-01-0826, 157.54 acres) and 4 miles (parcel ND-2026-01-0864, 320 acres) from the boundary of the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area (TRWA) in the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP-NU) and located on USFS and private surface respectively. As described in the Draft EA, concentrated existing development on private lands to the north and east of these parcels may be visible from portions of the TRNP-NU, especially higher elevations.

In our scoping comments² dated July 24, 2025, we emphasized the need for the BLM to consider deferring parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864 from this sale due to their close proximity to the TRWA in TRNP-NU. We provided documented evidence for why oil and gas development is not compatible with the protection of the special recreational, historical, wilderness, and wildlife habitat resources and values that TRNP has to offer. We identified specific conservation and multiple use conflicts and potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed lease parcels that the BLM is obligated to analyze under applicable law. We also expressed concerns about the misleading lease parcel maps which did not show the proximity of these two parcels to the TRWA boundary. And we expressed strong concerns about the BLM’s failure to consider the cumulative effects of the ongoing, incremental increases in oil and gas drilling operations that the BLM has allowed to occur near TRNP over the course of many years.

In reviewing the Draft EA and Draft FONSI for this sale, it is evident that the BLM has NOT considered deferring the two parcels identified above. It is also evident that the BLM has NOT evaluated potential impacts to wilderness characteristics despite the proximity of these two parcels to the TRWA boundary within TRNP-NU. In addition, the BLM has NOT considered the cumulative effects of its leasing practices on TRNP’s resources and values. And the BLM has NOT corrected the misleading parcel maps that we expressed concerns about in our scoping comments. Neither parcel map shows the adjacent park boundary, which is evidently located just outside the visible portion of the two maps. We had recommended that the BLM adjust the two parcel maps slightly in scale or center point in order to bring the park boundary onto the visible portion of the map, but you did not. For the record, we provide the following images showing the respective distances of ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-0864 to the boundary shared by the TRWA and TRNP-NU.

Distance of ND-2026-01-0826 from Theodore Roosevelt NP boundary is 3.04 miles

Distance of ND-2026-01-0864 from Theodore Roosevelt NP boundary is 3.0 miles

Given the history of extensive, ongoing, incremental oil and gas development surrounding TRNP, we are very concerned that that the BLM is continuing to lease additional parcels in close proximity to the park. We are especially concerned that the BLM does not seem to recognize or consider in its analysis the cumulative impacts of all of the oil and gas drilling operations near the park on the resources and values within the park. Cumulative visual impacts, including cumulative impacts to dark night skies, are particularly concerning as they also equate to cumulative impacts to wilderness character when they occur in such close proximity to the TRWA within TRNP-NU. As context for this concern, the park’s 2014 Foundation Document³ identifies the Wilderness Area and Wilderness Qualities as a Fundamental Resource and Value of TRNP:

The Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness and Wilderness Qualities Throughout the Park. Protecting wilderness values is central to the purpose of the park and is a reflection of the conservation ethic advocated by Roosevelt. Opportunities for solitude and adventure—exemplified by wilderness—drew Theodore Roosevelt to the North Dakota Badlands in the 1880s. Subsequently, the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness was designated in 1978 and spans 29,920 acres of the park’s North Unit and South Unit. 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. (Emphasis added)

As we also communicated in our scoping comments, NPS’s longstanding concerns about the proliferation of oil and gas development near TRNP and the NPS management emphasis on protecting the park’s landscape setting and wilderness character are well established. The same 2014 Foundation Document identifies BLM-managed oil and gas development surrounding the park as TRNP’s “most significant parkwide issue⁴” and states that:

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.⁵ (Emphasis added)

Despite these concerns, the BLM has yet again offered parcels for leasing, in this case two, in close proximity to the wilderness boundary of TRNP-NU. To add to our concern, Appendix L Table 1-2 of the Draft EA indicates that the BLM “considered but did not analyze” potential impacts to “Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas” or to “Lands with wilderness characteristics.” By not analyzing potential impacts, especially cumulative impacts, to the wilderness character of the TRWA in the Draft EA, the BLM has failed to meet its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).The BLM has also neglected to consider a reasonable modified leasing alternative that would defer leasing at least some of the proposed parcels, most notably in this case the two parcels in proximity to the TRWA boundary. In addition, as indicated in Section 1.4.1.1, the draft EA is tiered to the outdated 1988 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the North Dakota Field Office (NDFO) because 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). Whereas the enjoined 2025 RMP at least provided several protective stipulations specifically related to oil and gas development in close proximity to TRNP, Appendix C⁶ of the 1988 RMP provided none. For the above reasons, the BLM should have considered deferring parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-0864 until such time that the bureau has properly and fully assessed the potential impacts of leasing the lands for oil and gas development.

II. The BLM has ample authority to defer lease parcels proposed for this sale.

The BLM is not mandated to lease any particular parcel for oil and gas development and production. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), lands “known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased” by the Interior Department. 30 U.S.C. § 226(a) (emphasis added). If DOI chooses to lease lands, sales are held only “where eligible lands are available.” Id.§ 226(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). For nearly a century, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts have consistently recognized this “broad” and “considerable discretion” over the federal onshore leasing program.⁷ Where conflicts with other uses exist, as it does in this case, the BLM must analyze the deferral of lease parcels. The MLA does not contravene the resource conservation requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. Ch. 35.Lands merely being designated as “open” for leasing under a particular BLM 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 (10^thCir. 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 any or all lease sale parcels, even after bidding has concluded.⁸ Moreover, where conflicts with other uses exist, as is does in this case, the bureau must affirmatively evaluate deferral of parcels in its alternatives analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 43 U.S.C. Chapter 55.

III. The BLM must analyze the conservation and multiple use conflicts and environmental impacts associated with the proposed lease parcels, along with evaluating the deferral of parcels based on such conflicts, including through use of leasing preference criteria. The BLM must evaluate the environmental impacts of this proposed lease sale under NEPA. See e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 4331–4347. NEPA fosters informed decision making by federal agencies and promotes informed public participation in government decisions. See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). To meet those goals, NEPA requires that the BLM “consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action” and inform the public of those impacts. Id. (internal citation omitted); accord Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).⁹ The BLM must take a “hard look” at the environmental effects before making any leasing decisions, ensuring “that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349-50 (1989). Environmental “[e]ffects are reasonably foreseeable if they are sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take [them] into account in reaching a decision.” Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1371 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).

In considering environmental effects, the BLM must also address whether to defer lease parcels based on conservation or other use conflicts, including by applying the leasing preference criteria to scoping parcels. See 43 C.F.R. § 3120.32. Doing so clearly and consistently is important. A helpful example of clear application of the criteria is in the Environmental Assessment for the Wyoming Quarter Four 2023 Lease Sale. See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-WY-0000-2023-0004-EA, 2023 Fourth Quarter Competitive Lease Sale, at 18–21 & Table 2.3 (Nov. 2023). There, the BLM included an explanation of each criterion being used, followed by a table designating the preference (low or high). See id. Each parcel that received a “low” designation was deferred, with a brief parenthetical explanation in the chart as to why it was being deferred. See id. We urge the BLM to follow a similar, consistent approach for this lease sale.

In this case, the BLM’s analysis indicates that one of the two parcels in question does, in fact, have a “Low preference for leasing” under applicable BLM policies. See Appendix J Leasing Preference Rating¹⁰ , which we summarize here:

ND-2026-01-0826 (157.54 acres), located 3.0 miles from the park, is rated “ Low Preference” on the following three criteria: Proximity to Habitat; Other Important Uses or Resources; and High Preference for Leasing; resulting in an overall rating of “Low Preference for leasing.”

In contrast and inexplicably, ND-2026-01-6884 (320 acres), located 3.9 miles from the TRWA boundary, is rated “High Preference” on all criteria, including Other Important Uses or Resources, resulting in an overall rating of “High Preference for leasing.” Surely, the BLM’s evaluation of Other Important Uses or Resources for this parcel would have considered potential conflicts of leasing it with the protection of resources and values, such as wilderness character and recreational values, within the nearby TRNP-NU. We strongly suggest that this parcel merits a “Low Preference” rating under the Other Important Uses or Resources criterion due to its proximity to the park’s wilderness boundary; and therefore this parcel should merit an overall “Low Preference for leasing” rating. Based on its “Low preference for leasing” rating, the BLM clearly should defer leasing ND-2026-01-0826. And we would argue that the BLM should also defer leasing ND-2026-01-6884 for the reasons stated above. However, the Draft EA does not even consider deferring either parcel nor does it explain why the BLM has not considered a deferral alternative.

Determining and applying leasing preference also requires the BLM to evaluate its legal obligation “to take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). 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.

IV. The BLM has a duty to consider the impacts caused by the proposed uses of public lands, which would include impacts to adjacent lands such as Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Note: The text cited below is taken directly from Deputy Secretary of the Interior Katharine Sinclair MacGregor’s Decision Document¹¹ announcing the cancellation of Magic Valley Energy’s right-of-way authorization and right-of-way grant issued by the BLM for the Lava Ridge Wind Project adjacent to Minidoka National Historic Site (NHS), a National Park System unit located in south central Idaho. We have substituted “Theodore Roosevelt National Park” for “Minidoka NHS” (as indicated by [ ]) based on the principle that the BLM’s “duty to consider impacts… to adjacent lands” would reasonably apply to any unit of the National Park System, not just Minidoka NHS, that may be adversely impacted by BLM actions. See Section II.A. of the Decision Document for the wording cited.

The BLM has a duty to consider the impacts caused by the proposed uses of public lands, which would include impacts to adjacent lands such as [Theodore Roosevelt National Park]. This duty is part of the application process required by Title V of FLPMA, including an obligation to prevent an unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b), 1764(a)(4), and to adequately analyze the environmental impacts as required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Though the Project would not be located in any portion of [Theodore Roosevelt National Park], the Department and the BLM are nonetheless legally obligated to consider impacts to lands managed by NPS¹². The National Park Service Organic Act mandates that the Secretary “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units… by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a). Further, Congress reaffirmed the mandate in id. § 100101(a) by requiring that all activities “shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which the System units have been established, except as directly and specifically provided by Congress.” Id. § 100101(b)(2). NPS’s Management Policies interprets these two statutory obligations as creating one standard – “impairment” and “derogation.” NPS Management Policies § 1.4.2. (Emphasis added)

To that end, both FLPMA and NEPA provide that the BLM manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of scenic (visual) values. (Emphasis added) See 43 U.S.C. $$ 1701(a)(8), 1702(c), 1711(a), 1765(a); See also 42 U.S.C. §§ 4331(b)(2), 4332(A). The BLM does not clearly define in regulations how to manage (and designate) visual resources. Instead, it uses policy guidance in Manual 8400 – Visual Resource Management (April 4, 1984) and Handbooks 8410-1 – Visual Resource Inventory (Jan. 17, 1986) and 8431 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating (Jan. 17, 1986) to guide the management of visual resources.

In the case of the proposed drilling leases adjacent to TRNP, the BLM’s 2020 Visual Resources Inventory Report ¹³ for the North Dakota Field Office determined that Area 6 surrounding Theodore Roosevelt National Park has a Sensitivity Level Rating of “High” (see Figure 14); and a VRI Class II rating (see Figure 16).

Despite these relatively protective ratings, the VRI Class II rating does not appropriately capture the visual significance of the relatively undeveloped landscape surrounding the national park as seen from the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area. Nor does the Class II rating consider the cumulative effects of ongoing, incremental increases in oil and gas drilling operations in close proximity to the national park.

V. In addition to the above general concerns about the Proposed Action, we have the following specific concerns about the Draft EA.

a. The BLM must analyze the impacts, including cumulative effects, of leasing the two parcels in close proximity to the TRWA in TRNP-NU.

As described in the Introduction section above, the park’s 2014 Foundation Document repeatedly identifies “oil development on private, state, and federal lands around the park” as a significant threat to park resources and values. Specific impacts of concern identified in the Document include the following:

Oil and gas development in the surrounding area is the most significant parkwide issue. North Dakota is experiencing rapid oil and gas development in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Shale using hydraulic fracturing technology… 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. 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. 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.¹⁴ (Emphasis added)

In addition to the concerns expressed in the Foundation Document, a 2017 study¹⁵ prepared on behalf of the 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 development taking place around the park as “widespread,” “severe” and “the most significant parkwide issue.” (Emphasis added)

In light of the many NPS concerns described above, the large number of existing oil and gas wells in the vicinity of TRNP areundoubtedly causing ongoing impacts to park resources and values, including impacts to wilderness character. It has been documented that 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.¹⁶ And, as described in the Appendix L (p.6) of the Draft EA, “According to federal, state, and oil industry records, approximately 25,800 active wells in North Dakota currently contribute to this issue.”

Despite the clarity of these concerns, the BLM continues to offer lease parcels for oil and gas development in close proximity to TRNP even though the current level of oil and gas development surrounding the park is already causing noticeable adverse impacts to park resources and values, especially wilderness character. As stated previously, “[e]nergy 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.”¹⁷ (Emphasis added)

By allowing additional new drilling activity in close proximity to the TRWA boundary, the BLM will inevitably and incrementally cause an increase in the severity of cumulative effects already occurring from existing drilling operations. In our view, a proper cumulative effects analysis would identify and consider the long-term impacts on wilderness character caused by incremental and ongoing increases in drilling activity; however, the Draft EA does not include such an analysis.

Given the sensitive and unique resources and values present within TRNP, it is imperative that the BLM disclose and analyze the impacts of the proposed leasing and development on adjacent park lands, including preparing a meaningful cumulative effects analysis of how drilling on the proposed parcels would add to the degradation of wilderness character and other impacts from existing development as noted above. Where conflicts with other uses exist, the bureau must also affirmatively evaluate deferral of parcels in its alternatives analysis under NEPA. The BLM cannot merely “respond to industry expressions of interest… in leasing specific land parcels,” but rather it must undertake “independent agency determinations of which parcels to offer for oil and gas leases.” Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 22-cv-1871 (CRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51011, at *69 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2024).

b. Under NEPA, the BLM must evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives for this lease sale.

The Draft EA considers only two alternatives: the no action alternative and the full-leasing alternative. Failure to analyze a reasonable, modified leasing alternative, which considers deferral of one or more parcels based on the discussion above and based on the recommendations we previously provided in scoping comments is a violation of NEPA. For years, the BLM has included such a modified leasing, or deferral, alternative in its lease sale NEPA analyses. It must do so for this lease sale.

The range of alternatives is the heart of a NEPA document because “[w]ithout substantive, comparative environmental impact information regarding other possible courses of action, the ability of [a NEPA analysis] to inform agency deliberation and facilitate public involvement would be greatly degraded.”

New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 683, 708. NEPA analysis must cover a reasonable range of alternatives so that an agency can make an informed choice from the spectrum of reasonable options. An environmental review offering a choice only between leasing every parcel nominated or leasing nothing at all under the no-action alternative fails to present a reasonable range of alternatives. A middle-ground alternative should consider deferring leasing of at least some parcels. In this case, considering a deferral alternative is particularly important when considering impacts to protected resources and values including wilderness character at TRNP.

Based on the specific circumstances of this proposed lease sale, it would be entirely appropriate for the BLM to evaluate an alternative that would defer leasing the two parcels in closest proximity to the TRWA boundary. As discussed previously, deferring parcels that present such significant conflicts on such sensitive lands is precisely what the Leasing Rule contemplates.

Evaluating such an alternative is also necessary to fulfill the “absolute duty” of the Secretary of the Interior, and therefore the Department and its bureaus such as the BLM, to protect national park resources and values from foreseeable adverse impacts that in this case would be caused by BLM-managed activities on public lands adjacent to TRNP. As described in NPS Management Policies 2006, under the 1978 Redwood amendment to the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970, Congress has declared that “the Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised…to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system¹⁸(Emphasis added) It is also described in NPS Management Policies that “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.”¹⁸Id. at Section 1.4.3. It follows, therefore, that 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.”¹⁹ (Emphasis added)

c. Deferring parcels adjacent to Theodore Roosevelt National Park from this sale would be consistent with previous BLM deferral actions taken in 2018 and twice in 2025.

Deferring these two parcels from leasing now would be consistent with the precedent established by the BLM during the March 2018 lease sale (DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2017-0133-EA) under the first Trump Administration in which the BLM deferred a parcel adjacent to TRNP-NU from leasing due, in part, to concerns about potential impacts to TRNP resources and values. The BLM decision²⁰ to withdraw the parcel states, in part:

The BLM has decided to defer the one nominated lease parcel for the North Dakota March 2018 Lease Sale, and to withdraw from analysis the associated EA (Environmental Assessment). Due to 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, this parcel is being deferred.

Because the January 2026 Proposed Action involves leasing two parcels near TRNP, 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 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 K²¹ (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.

And more recently, the BLM decided to temporarily defer three parcels ND-2025-10-6884, ND-2025-10-0782, and ND-2025-10- 6882, as part of the Montana-Dakotas Q4 October 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0003-EA). See Appendix K²² (pp.41-42) of the lease sale EA, which states, in part:

These parcels have been temporarily deferred and removed from the Montana-Dakotas Q4 October 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale.

Given the similarity in circumstances between the March 2018 Lease Sale, the Q3 September 2025 Lease Sale, the Q4 October 2025 Lease Sale, and the current Proposed Action – each involving proposed leasing of parcel(s) in close proximity to the TRWA boundary in TRNP-NU – one would reasonably expect the BLM to at least consider deferring ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864 for the Q1 January 2026 lease sale. If the BLM were to allow oil and gas development on the parcels in close proximity to the TRWA boundary this time, the stark contrast in the outcomes between that and the 2018 and 2025 Q3 and Q4 decisions would seem to be arbitrary and capricious.

d. Given that parcels ND-2026-01-0826 (3.0 miles) and ND-2026-01-0864 (3.9 miles) are in close proximity to the TRWA in the North Unit of TRNP, we are particularly concerned that the Draft EA does not adequately analyze potential impacts to wilderness character.

We appreciate that Chapter 3 of the Draft EA evaluates potential impacts to the park’s Air Quality and Cultural Resources; and Appendix L, Issues Analyzed in Brief, Section 1.6.4, discusses concerns about protecting Visual Resources at TRNP. However, these analyses clearly were not conducted in the context of potential impacts to the TRWA’s wilderness character. Given the information we provided in our scoping comments, we are disappointed that the Draft EA barely mentions the TRWA and utterly fails to provide a meaningful analysis of potential impacts to the Area’s wilderness character. As background on the concept of “wilderness character” and why minimizing impacts to it is important, BLM Manual 6340 ²³ states, in part:

As set forth in Section 2(c) (“Definition of Wilderness”) of the Wilderness Act,

wilderness character is composed of four mandatory qualities and a fifth, optional, quality. These are:

i. Untrammeled. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Here, used metaphorically, “untrammeled” refers to wilderness as essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. This quality is impaired by human activities or actions that control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness.

ii. Natural. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” In short, wilderness ecological systems should be as free as possible from the effects of modern civilization. This quality may be affected by intended or unintended effects of human activities on the ecological systems inside the wilderness.

iii. Undeveloped. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is an area “of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Wilderness has minimal evidence of modern human occupation or modification.

iv. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation.
Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience: natural sights and sounds; remote, isolated, unfrequented, or secluded places; and freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance. This quality is impaired by settings that reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.

v. Unique, Supplemental, or Other Features. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” These values are identified in a number of ways: in the area’s designating legislation, through its legislative history, by the original wilderness inventory, in a wilderness management plan, or at some other time after designation.

The relationship between the components of wilderness character is important: though the qualities listed above are generally thought of separately, it is these qualities working in concert that actually define the whole of wilderness character. (Emphasis added)

Regarding the analysis of potential impacts of oil and gas leasing on adjacent wilderness area, BLM Manual 6340 also states, in part:

Prior to the approval of a permit to drill, the portion of the boundary of the Wilderness adjacent to the lease must have an official survey. NEPA analysis for a lease of public lands outside the boundary of a wilderness should address impacts to adjacent wilderness values; mitigation measures should be considered to the extent reasonable and feasible.²⁴ (Emphasis added)

Despite the significant level of protection conveyed by Congress to the federally designated TRWA, and despite BLM Manual 6340’s guidance directing the BLM to such analyze potential impacts to wilderness character “for a lease of public lands outside the boundary of a wilderness” cited above, Appendix L Table 1.2 of the Draft EA states that the BLM “considered but did not analyze” potential impacts to Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. This lack of analysis of impacts to wilderness character inevitably applies to:

Parcel ND-2026-01-0826 (157.54 acres located 3.0 miles from the TRWA boundary)
Parcel ND-2026-01-0864 (320 acres located 3.9 miles from the TRWA boundary)

Foreseeable potential impacts to wilderness character include air emissions, increased noise, night sky degradation, and drilling operations intruding upon the viewshed. As noted above and in BLM Manual 6340 (p. 1-6), “it is these qualities working in concert that actually define the whole of wilderness character.” Yet the Draft EA provides no specific analysis of the potential impacts to TRWA’s wilderness character.

Lastly, we note that in a limited number of cases, past wilderness legislation has included a specific provision that “adjacent multiple use lands are not to be managed to provide buffer zones around wilderness areas” (e.g., the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984). However, there was no such provision in the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978²⁵ (PL 95-625, Section 401), which designated the TRWA. As a result, the BLM must properly disclose and analyze potential impacts of leasing these parcels adjacent to the NPS-managed wilderness area. And similar to the BLM’s decisions in 2018 and twice again in 2025 to defer leasing parcel(s) near the park wilderness boundary, it would be reasonable and prudent for the BLM to similarly defer on leasing parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-0864 until such time that the bureau has properly and fully assessed the potential impacts of leasing the lands for oil and gas development in close proximity to the TRWA for the 2026 Q1 (January) lease sale.

e. The Draft EA improperly attempts to “defer” conducting a more detailed, site-specific analysis to the permitting stage.

As stated in the Draft EA at p. 13: “The act of leasing parcels would not cause direct effects to resources because no surface disturbance would occur. The only direct effects of leasing are the creation of valid existing rights and impacts related to revenue generated by the lease sale receipts. Future lease exploration and development activities proposed through individual APD submission would be subject to future BLM decision-making and NEPA analysis. Upon receipt of an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD), the BLM would initiate a site-specific NEPA analysis that considers the reasonably foreseeable effects of a specific action.” (Emphasis added)

Despite the BLM’s plan to defer site-specific impact analysis until the permitting stage, federal courts have repeatedly rejected agency claims that analysis at the lease sale stage would be speculative. See, e.g., Northern Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board, 668 F.3d 1067, 1078–79 (9^th Cir. 2011) (“Because speculation is implicit in NEPA, we must reject any attempt by agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA labeling any and all discussion of future environmental effects as crystal ball inquiry.” (quotations and alternations omitted)). The BLM “cannot escape” proper analysis at the leasing stage “by claiming that a more precise analysis is not feasible and promising a more probing review of the site-specific effects at the APD stage.” Wilderness Soc’y, No. 22-cv-1871 (CRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51011, at *61 (quotation marks omitted). Because leasing is an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, the BLM may not defer detailed analysis until the permitting stage.

We also note that BLM’s “APD posting and processing” regulation at 43 CFR §3171.13²⁶ does NOT provide for public comment if/when additional NEPA review is conducted. As stated in sub-section (a)(1) of the regulation: “The BLM will post information about the APD or Notice of Staking for Federal oil and gas leases to the internet and in an area of the BLM Field Office having jurisdiction that is readily accessible to the public…The posting is for informational purposes only and is not an appealable decision. The purpose of the posting is to give any interested party notification that a Federal approval of mineral operations has been requested.” (Emphasis added) In essence, the Draft EA’s (p. 13) promise that any APD received would be subject to a “site-specific NEPA analysis” provides little assurance that any additional NEPA review would be subject to the same level of public involvement that has occurred with the Draft EA.

Without full consideration of the impacts of leasing and development of these parcels adjacent to TRNP-NU on the park’s resources and values, including impacts to the TRWA’s wilderness character, the BLM cannot make an informed decision on whether to defer the aforementioned parcels or not. Until a full analysis is complete, the BLM must defer parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864.

VI. Because the Draft FONSI is based on a fundamentally flawed Draft EA, the Draft FONSI is defective as well.

Throughout this letter we have described concerns about the Draft EA’s failure to analyze potential impacts to wilderness character in the TRWA within TRNP-NU, as well as its failure to consider an alternative to defer leasing the two parcels in close proximity to the Wilderness Area boundary. In contrast, under similar circumstances in 2018 and twice again in 2025 (involving proposed leasing of parcels in close proximity to the same Wilderness Area in TRNP), the BLM did, in fact, defer on leasing the offending parcel(s) for various reasons including: “[D]ue to 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.”²⁷ Similar to the deferrals of the North Dakota March 2018 Lease Sale²⁸ and the Montana-Dakotas Q3 September 2025 and Q4 October 2025 lease sales, the BLM should now defer on leasing parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864 in the January 2026 lease sale.

VII. Closing Comment

In our comments above, we have described a variety of concerns about the BLM’s proposed leasing of parcels ND-2026-01-0826 and ND-2026-01-0864, which are located in close proximity to the TRWA boundary in TRNP-NU. If the BLM decides to proceed with leasing these parcels despite these concerns, we ask that the BLM explain in the final EA and FONSI why it has decided to do so despite the obvious lack of analysis of potential impacts to wilderness character in the Draft EA; and despite similarities to the March 2018, September 2025, and October 2025 lease sales that previously resulted in the prudent decision to defer leasing parcels located adjacent to the TRWA. The similarities between the 2018 and two 2025 lease sales and the proposed January 2026 lease sale are readily apparent. However, if drilling operations were to be allowed on parcels in close proximity or adjacent to the TRWA this time, the stark contrast in the outcomes between such a decision and the previous the 2018 and 2025 decisions would seem arbitrary and capricious.

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

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

cc: Bill Groffy, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management

Attachment 1: DOI Decision Document, August 5, 2025, ref. ROW grant for Mountain Valley Energy

1
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/23/2024-08138/fluid-mineral-leases-and-leasing-process
2
https://protectnps.org/2025/07/24/coalition-comments-on-proposed-parcels-for-blm-montana-dakotas-january-2026-oil-and-gas-lease-sale/
3
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p.9.
4
Id. at p. 14.
5
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p. 27.
6
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123134/finalappendixc.pdf
7
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, as opposed to passively responding to expressions of interest.”); W. Energy Alliance v. Salazar, 709 F.3d 1040, 1044 (10th Cir. 2013) (“The MLA, as amended by the Reform Act of 1987, continues to vest the Secretary with considerable discretion to determine which lands will be leased.”); 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.”); McDonald v. Clark, 771 F.2d 460, 463 (10th Cir. 1985) (“It is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion in this area. While the statute gives the Secretary the authority to lease government lands under oil and gas leases, this power is discretionary rather than mandatory.”); Burglin v. Morton, 527 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The permissive word ‘may’ in Section 226(a) allows the Secretary to lease such lands, but does not require him to do so. Although Section 226(c) requires the Secretary to issue the lease to the first qualified applicant if the land is leased, the Secretary has discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract.”).
8
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 Justheim Petroleum v. Dep’t of Interior, 769 F.2d 668, 671 (10th Cir. 1985) (language in 30 U.S.C. § 226 mandating that “lands to be leased … shall be leased to the highest responsible qualified bidder” did not require issuing a lease, but only required awarding lease to that bidder “if [the Secretary] is going to lease at all”); Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 22-CV-247-SWS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235015, at *43 (D. Wyo. Dec. 31, 2024) (“When considering statutory language, the use of the word ‘may’ creates a presumption of discretion under normal rules of statutory interpretation, in contrast with the mandatory ‘shall.’” (cleaned up)); 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); 89 Fed. Reg. at 30,945 (“[T]he Secretary retains the discretion to decide, even after lands have been determined to be eligible and available, what lands will ultimately be offered for lease.”).
9
See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, 413 (1976); City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Serv., 541 F.2d 967, 973–74 (2d Cir. 1976); Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817, 825 (D.C. Cir 1976); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 666-677 (9th Cir. 1975); Brooks v. Coleman, 518 F.2d 17, 18 (9th Cir. 1975); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 89 (2d Cir. 1975); Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Eng’rs of U.S. Army, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (5th Cir. 1974); Swain v. Brinegar, 517 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1975); Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Butz, 498 F.2d 1314, 1322 (8th Cir. 1974); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834–36 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830-31 (2d Cir. 1972); Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C.  Cir. 1971).
10
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20142612/251042592/Appendix%20J%20Leasing%20Preference%2043%20CFR%203120.32%20Q1%2026.pdf
11
DOI Decision Document, dated August 5, 2025, which is attached to these comments. See Section II.A. for the wording cited.
12
Footnote from Decision Document: Even though the NPS has no decision to make regarding the Project, it is nevertheless incumbent on the BLM (and ultimately the Department) to correctly determine whether the Project would impair [Theodore Roosevelt NP]. Consistent with Title V of FLPMA, the BLM has discretion to approve or deny uses of public lands even if such uses impact NPS units.
13
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1505069/200366341/20025051/250031255/140L0619F0272_VRI_508_20200827.pdf
14
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p.14.
15
NPS, January 2017 Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota Historic Resource Study, available at http://www.npshistory.com/publications/thro/hrs.pdf.
16
See 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.
17
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p. 27.
18
NPS 2006 Management Policies, Section 1.4.2, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf.[/mfn (Emphasis added) It is also described in NPS Management Policies that “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.”¹⁸Id. at Section 1.4.3.
19
See DOI Solicitor Opinion # M-36993,# which is commonly referred to as “the Doe Run opinion.”
20
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87486/127800/155500/Withdrawn.pdf
21
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20137996/251037976/Appendix%20K%20September%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
22
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2036978/200643299/20141853/251041833/Appendix%20K%20October%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
23
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual6340.pdf at pp. 1-5 and 1-6.
24
Id. at p. 1-35.[/mfn (Emphasis added)

As described in our scoping comments, concerns about the potential impacts of oil and gas development near TRNP and the TRWA are well documented. For example, the previously mentioned 2014 TRNP Foundation Document states that “[p]rotecting 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.”²⁴https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at pp.8-9.
25
https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/public-law-95-625.pdf
26
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-3170/subpart-3171/section-3171.12
27
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87486/127800/155500/Withdrawn.pdf
28
Id.