Protecting Theodore Roosevelt National Park: Coalition Calls on BLM to Halt New Oil and Gas Leases Near Park Boundary – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

Submitted on-line via: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2040547/570/8021539/comment

November 4, 2025

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

Subject: Scoping comments on parcels under consideration for inclusion in the BLM Montana-Dakotas Q2 (April) 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0010-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 Second Quarter (April) Oil and Gas Lease Sale. The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition) is comprised of more than 4,700 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.

INTRODUCTION

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 2026 Q2 (April) Oil & Gas Parcel List provided in Appendix A³ identifies 23 parcels, totaling 8,992.22 acres, which are proposed for leasing. For the reasons discussed in the comments below, we recommend that the BLM designate as “low preference” and therefore consider deferring the following twelve (12) parcels that are in close proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area (TRWA-NU) within the North Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP-NU):

ND-2026-04-0768 (640 acres; abutting the south boundary of TRWA-NU)
ND-2026-04-0766 (960 acres; includes two sections, one located about 1 mile south of the TRWA-NU south boundary and one located about 2.5 miles south of the same boundary)
ND-2026-04-6878 (320 acres; located about 2 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-6934 (158 acres; located about 3 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-0763 (320 acres; located about 3.5 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-0765 (640 acres; located about 4 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-0770 (640 acres; located about 3 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-0775 (640 acres; located about 4 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-0776 (640 acres; located about 5 miles south of the TRWA-NU south boundary)
ND-2026-04-6852 (160 acres; located about 4 miles south of the TRWA-NU southeast boundary)
ND-2026-04-6922 (619 acres; located about 5 miles south of the TRWA-NU southeast boundary)
ND-2026-04-00854 (661 acres; located about 9 miles SE of the TRWA-NU southeast boundary)

All told, the above list of 12 parcels equals approximately 6,400 acres of relatively undeveloped land that are now being offered by the BLM for new oil and gas development LESS THAN 10 MILES from the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area boundary within TRNP-NU. As a result, the proposed leasing is very concerning considering the amount of oil and gas drilling that is already occurring around the park.

We offer the following comments for your consideration as you prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed action.

GENERAL COMMENTS

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.

In contrast to the 70,447 acres protected within TRNP including 29,920 acres of designated wilderness, 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 development⁷ The 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 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)

The drilling of more wells on twelve additional parcels near the park, as proposed for DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0010-EA, would undoubtedly add new impacts to existing impacts. This would inevitably increase cumulative impacts on park resources and values as the BLM continues to allow more and more drilling near the TRNP boundary. To be clear, 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 Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2025-028, issued on May 8, 2025, 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 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920¹⁴ (MLA), as amended, 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.¹⁵ 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.¹⁶ It provides for managing public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.¹⁷ Land use plans or Resource Management Plans (RMPs) project both the present and future use(s) of the land. The BLM uses RMPs to identify which areas will be open to oil and gas leasing and development.¹⁸ 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.”¹⁹

RMPs may grant the BLM authority to lease in certain areas.²⁰ However, before issuing leases 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.²¹ 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.²² 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 this case, the Record of Decision²³ for the previous RMP for the North Dakota Field Office (NDFO) was issued in April 1988. The 1988 RMP notably did NOT include environmental impact analysis of potential impacts to TRNP resources and values nor stipulations specifically related to the protection of resources and values, including wilderness character, within TRNP. In 2023-2024, the BLM went through a planning process to revise the outdated 1988 NDFO RMP and issued a Record of Decision²⁴ for a revised RMP on January 8, 2025. The 2025 RMP notably included several stipulations specifically related to the protection of resources and values, including wilderness characteristics, within TRNP. However, 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, including its analyses and stipulations, was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.²⁵ In addition, under the Congressional Review Act the House and the Senate approved a join resolution (JR) in October 2025 to overturn the 2025 NDFO RMP. However, we cannot currently confirm if the JR has been signed by the President or not.

Regardless of the status of the JR, the 2025 RMP remains enjoined. As a result, “the land use allocations (stipulations) [for the proposed sale] will be in conformance with the prior resource management plan for the NDFO, the 1988 ND RMP.”²⁶ If the proposed 2026 Q2 (April) lease sale is to be carried out pursuant to the 1988 ND RMP, available stipulations and conservation measures would be based on grossly outdated information; and would NOT include any stipulations specifically related to the protection of resources and values, including wilderness character, within TRNP. As a result, given the staleness of the RMP, the BLM should defer leasing these 12 parcels until the agency can conduct new inventories and analyzes regarding how best to protect the resources and values within TRNP. At the very least, the agency must conduct a meaningful analysis of the potential impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative²⁷) that new leasing and development would have on sensitive resources adjacent to and within TRNP, including potential impacts to the park’s wilderness character.

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.

In general, the BLM must evaluate the environmental impacts of this proposed lease sale under the National Environmental Policy Act²⁸ (NEPA). NEPA fosters informed decision making by federal agencies and promotes informed public participation in government decisions.²⁹ 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.³⁰ 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.”³¹ 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.”³²

Where conflicts with other uses exist, the BLM must analyze the deferral of lease parcels. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act³³ (FLPMA), the BLM must manage public lands for “multiple use”³⁴ in order to “best meet the future needs of the American people” and make “the most judicious use of the land,”³⁵ including by preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.³⁶ In considering the environmental effects of leasing the proposed parcels, the BLM should also consider whether to defer the parcels based on conservation or other use conflicts.

VI. The BLM must determine the preference with which the proposed lease parcels should be given for lease and should consider deferring parcels found to have “low” preference for lease.

In considering environmental effects, the BLM must address whether to defer lease parcels based on conservation or other use conflicts, including by applying the leasing preference criteria to scoping parcels.³⁷ 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.’”³⁸ 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”³⁹ and on lands “with high potential for development,”⁴⁰ 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 or nearby.

Determining leasing preference also requires the BLM to evaluate its obligation “to take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.”⁴¹ 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.⁴²

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 does or does not fulfill this obligation to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2025-028⁴³ 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,⁴⁴ only vaguely referring to “eligible” lands in its competitive leasing manual as those “not excluded from leasing by a statutory or regulatory prohibition.”⁴⁵ 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.”⁴⁶ 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].”⁴⁷ 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 Comment # V above, the BLM has a legal obligation under NEPA⁴⁸ to evaluate the environmental impacts of its proposed actions, including the leasing of parcels for oil and gas development. And FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands for “multiple use”⁴⁹ in order to “best meet the future needs of the American people” and make “the most judicious use of the land,”⁵⁰ including by preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.⁵¹

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 twelve of the proposed parcels as having low preference for leasing, and should consider deferring them from the BLM Montana-Dakotas 2026 Q2 (April) Oil and Gas Lease Sale. The twelve parcels that merit low preference for leasing because of their proximity to TRNP are listed in the Introduction section above.

VII. As recently affirmed by the Department of the Interior, 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 Document⁵² , dated August 5, 2025, 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 [ ]) in the text quoted below 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 NPS.⁵³ 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 Report⁵⁴ 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 adequately 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.

VIII. Because of the potential impacts of the proposed action to wilderness character and other resources and values within TRNP, we urge the BLM to include the following analyses in its forthcoming NEPA review and associated parcel deferral recommendations.

A. 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 character and recreational, historical, and wildlife habitat resources, including wilderness character, present within TRNP.

Twelve (12) parcels under consideration for inclusion in this lease sale are located 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. As summarized in the Introduction section above, parcel ND-2026-04-0768 (640 acres) literally abuts the south boundary of the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area within the North Unit of TRNP; and the other 11 parcels are located at varying distances from the park’s wilderness boundary. All told, the 12 parcels equal approximately 6,400 acres of relatively undeveloped land that are now being offered by the BLM for new oil and gas development LESS THAN 10 MILES from the park’s Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area boundary. As a result, the proposed leasing is very concerning, especially considering the amount of oil and gas drilling that is already occurring around 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 Act⁵⁵ 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 Policies⁵⁶ 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 Act⁵⁷ TRNP is afforded the highest level of air quality protection. Similarly, under the Wilderness Act of 1964⁵⁸ 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 Act⁵⁹ The Act states that federal agencies, like the NPS, are responsible for preserving the wilderness character of wilderness areas. The NPS describes wilderness character⁶⁰ 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 study⁶¹ 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 website⁶²

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 potential 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, those two EAs provided no acknowledgement or analysis of potential impacts to the park’s wilderness character. 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-0000-2025-0010-EA. While the impact of any one well may not rise to the level of “significant,” we are particular concerned about the cumulative impacts of the BLM allowing more and more drilling near the park over the course of many years. 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 B⁶³ , which lists Stipulation Definitions for the Q2 April 2026 lease sale, contains no stipulations specifically related to the protection of resources and values, including air quality and wilderness characteristics, within TRNP. We imagine this may be due to the court enjoining the 2025 North Dakota Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), as described on pages 40-41of Appendix K⁶⁴, 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 RMP⁶⁵ for provide stipulations for oil and gas development. The 1988 RMP’s Appendix C⁶⁶ on Oil and Gas Stipulations and Leasing Restrictions provides no stipulations specifically related to oil and gas leasing near the national park boundary. In essence, instead of applying the relatively modest park-related stipulations described in the enjoined 2025 RMP, the BLM will be defaulting to “no guidance” and “no stipulations” regarding potential impacts to TRNP under 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.

B. BLM must conduct a meaningful analysis of impact direct, and indirect, and cumulative impacts to wilderness character within the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area in the North Unit of TRNP.

BLM policy on the management of wilderness is found in BLM Manual 6340⁶⁷, which 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.⁶⁸

As described in our comments above, concerns about the potential impacts of oil and gas development near TRNP and the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area boundary 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.”⁶⁹ (Emphasis added)

We are very concerned that three recent previous EA’s for proposed lease sales near TRNP did NOT include any meaningful analysis of potential impacts to the park’s wilderness character. The EA’s are: 1) Montana-Dakotas Q3 September 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0001-EA); 2) Montana-Dakotas Q4 October 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0003-EA); and 3) Montana-Dakotas 2026 Q1 January Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0008-EA).

In each of the above EA’s, Table 1.2 regarding “Issues Considered but not Analyzed in this EA” notably 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 any/all lease parcels in close proximity to the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area in the North Unit of TRNP. This continued lack of BLM analysis regarding potential impacts to the park’s wilderness character is unacceptable. We are especially concerned about the lack of analysis of cumulative impacts, given the high number of existing wells surrounding the park; and given the outdated 1988 RMP’s lack of protective stipulations that are specifically related to protecting resources and values, including wilderness character, within TRNP.

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, some 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 1978⁷⁰ (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.

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 already in 2025.

Deferring the twelve 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 decision⁷¹ 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.

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 K⁷² (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 K⁷³ (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.

Because the 2026 Q2 (April) Proposed Action involves leasing twelve parcels near TRNP, not just one as in the 2018 deferral or several as in the previous 2025 lease sales, 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(s) that were deferred in 2018 and 2025.And 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 – involving proposed leasing of parcel(s) in close proximity to the TRWA boundary in TRNP-NU – one would reasonably expect the BLM to fully consider deferring the leasing of the 12 parcels near TRNP’s North Unit. In contrast, if the BLM were to allow oil and gas development on the parcels in close proximity to the TRWA boundary this time, such a decision would seem arbitrary and capricious compared to precedent established by the 2018 and 2025 Q3 and Q4 deferral decisions.

For the reasons described above, we urge the BLM to defer leasing the twelve parcels listed in the Introduction section of this letter. 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 disclose and fully evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of noise, light pollution, and visual intrusion on wilderness character and visitor experience 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.

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,

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:
Rachel Daniels, Superintendent, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, National Park Service

William Groffy, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management

Attachment 1: Decision Document for the Lava Ridge Wind Project, August 5, 2025

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/2040547/200664973/20145325/251045305/Appendix%20A%20Q2%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
30 U.S.C. §§ 181-287
15
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).
16
See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1772.
17
See id. § 1732(a).
18
See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n).
19
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.”).
20
See 30 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-2(a).
21
See 42 U.S.C. § 4336b.
22
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.
23
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123142/rod.pdf
24
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1505069/200366341/20126222/251026202/NDRMP_ROD_20250108_508.pdf
25
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20138007/251037987/Draft%20Q3%20September%202025%20Lease%20Sale%20FONSI.pdf
26
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.”).
27
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).
28
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/NEPA%20amended%202025.pdf
29
See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983).
30
Id. (internal citation omitted); accord Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).
31
See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349-50 (1989).
32
See Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1371 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).
33
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/AboutUs_LawsandRegs_FLPMA.pdf
34
FLPMA § 102(a)(7), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7)-(8), 1702(c), 1702(h).
35
Id. at § 103(c).
36
43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b).
37
See 43 C.F.R. § 3120.32.
38
89 Fed. Reg. 30,916, 30,919 (Apr. 23, 2024) (quoting 43 U.S.C. §1702).
39
43 C.F.R. § 3120.32(a).
40
43 C.F.R. § 3120.32(e).
41
43 U.S.C. § 1732(b).
42
43 C.F.R. § 6101.2(aa).
43
https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2025-028
44
See, e.g., 89 Fed. Reg. at 30,924.
45
BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., BLM MANUAL MS-3120 COMPETITIVE LEASES (P) at 6 (Feb. 18, 2013).
46
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)).
47
BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., BLM MANUAL MS-3120 COMPETITIVE LEASES (P) at 6.
48
42 USC CH. 45.
49
FLPMA § 102(a)(7), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7)-(8), 1702(c), 1702(h).
50
Id. at § 103(c).
51
43 U.S.C. §§ 1732(b).
52
DOI Decision Document, dated August 5, 2025, which is attached to these comments. See Section II.A. for the wording cited
53
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.
54
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1505069/200366341/20025051/250031255/140L0619F0272_VRI_508_20200827.pdf
55
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title54/subtitle1&edition=prelim
56
NPS 2006 Management Policies, available at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf
57
42 USC Chapter 85.
58
16 USC Chapter 23.
59
Id.
60
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/wilderness/wilderness-character.htm
61
https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/549138
62
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/nature/lightscape.htm
63
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20136953/251036933/Appendix%20B%20Q1%20January%202026%20Lease%20Stipulation%20Definitions.pdf
64
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20137996/251037976/Appendix%20K%20September%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
65
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/68341/510
66
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123134/finalappendixc.pdf
67
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual6340.pdf at pp. 1-5 and 1-6.
68
Id. at p. 1-35.
69
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at pp.8-9.
70
https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/public-law-95-625.pdf
71
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87486/127800/155500/Withdrawn.pdf
72
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2035530/200638576/20137996/251037976/Appendix%20K%20September%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
73
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2036978/200643299/20141853/251041833/Appendix%20K%20October%202025%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf