Coalition Urges BLM to Defer April 2026 Oil & Gas Lease Parcels Near Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s Wilderness – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

December 19, 2026

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 Second Quarter (April) Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-MT-0000-2025-0010-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 Second Quarter (Q2) April 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 still remains in effect and 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 23 parcels, totaling 8,992.22 acres, which are proposed for leasing during the Q2 2026 lease sale. The proposed parcels include

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-2026-04-0854 (661 acres; located about 9 miles SE of the TRWA-NU southeast boundary)

As identified in Appendix J² of the EA, all of the above parcels have a Low Preference for Leasing based on Low Preference ratings on multiple rating criteria.We will discuss this further in the comments below. 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. This includes 3 parcels less than 3 miles from the park and 3 more parcels located between 3-4 miles from the park boundary.

In our scoping comments³ dated November 4, 2025, we emphasized the need for the BLM to consider deferring some, if not all of the above, parcels 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 BLM’s failure in previous lease sales 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 terms of possible deferrals as described in Section 1.1 of the EA, under Alternative C the BLM considers deferring leasing of 2 parcels in Greater Sage-grouse HMAs in areas managed by the South Dakota Field Office (SDFO). However, the EA does NOT consider deferring the leasing of ANY parcels managed by the North Dakota Field Office (NDFO); including any of the 12 parcels in proximity to TRNP. In addition, the BLM has NOT considered or analyzed the cumulative effects of its leasing practices on TRNP’s resources and values, including wilderness character. 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 without identifying the number(s) of wells already in operation.

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. As we will discuss in greater detail later in this letter, there are likely dozens if not hundreds of existing well located less than 10 miles from the park boundary; yet the EA does not accurately describe or quantify the existing level of development, nor does it provide a meaningful analysis of reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects of allowing even more drilling operations near 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 Document⁴ 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 Document⁵ identifies BLM-managed oil and gas development surrounding the park as TRNP’s “most significant parkwide issue” 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 impacts⁶. (Emphasis added)

Despite these concerns, the BLM has yet again offered parcels for leasing, in this case 12 parcels, in proximity to the wilderness boundary of TRNP-NU. To add to our concern, it appears that the BLM has again neglected to consider in its EA a reasonable modified leasing alternative that would defer leasing at least some of the proposed parcels in proximity to the park. In addition, as indicated in Section 1.5.1, the draft EA is tiered to the outdated 1988 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the 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 C⁷ of the 1988 RMP provides none. For the above reasons, the BLM should have considered deferring some, if not all, of the parcels identified in the Introduction section of this letter until 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 program⁸. 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^th 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 any or all lease sale parcels, even after bidding has concluded⁹. 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)¹⁰. 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 ALL 12 parcels located near the park have a “Low preference for leasing” under applicable BLM policies. See Appendix J Leasing Preference Rating¹¹. Despite these many Low Preference ratings, the EA does NOT consider deferring any of the 12 parcels in question. 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. “Undue degradation” means harm to land resources or values that is excessive or disproportionate to the proposed action or an existing disturbance.

The statutory obligation to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” applies when 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 Document¹² 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 NPS.¹³ 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).

In this case, the BLM must consider impacts of the proposed lease sale on the scenic values, wilderness character, and other resources and values of TRNP.

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

Before we get into the substantive comments below, we call your attention to several apparent minor typographical errors in Chapter 1 of the EA. The errors are: a) Background section, p. 2 mid-page states, in part: “BLM MTDKs has prepared this Environmental Assessment for the Quarter 2, April 2026 oil and gas lease sale, which considers two alternatives.” The EA then lists three alternatives (not two); and b) Section 1.7, p. 8, states that “[t]hrough scoping, four issues were identified for detailed analysis in this EA.” The EA then lists five issues for detailed analysis (not four).

Our substantive comments about the Draft EA are as follows:

The BLM must analyze the impacts, including cumulative effects, of leasing the 12 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 are undoubtedly 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 development¹⁶. And, as described in the Appendix L (p.7) 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 (NDFO July 2024 FEIS).”

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)

The total number of existing wells surrounding the North Unit of TRNP is not specified in the EA, but very concerning nonetheless. By continuing to allow additional new drilling activity in close proximity to the park’s wilderness 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, quantify, and analyze the long-term impacts on wilderness character and scenic values caused by incremental and ongoing increases in drilling activity. The Draft EA does NOT include such an analysis.

While the Draft EA occasionally does acknowledge the extensive level of oil and gas development surrounding the park, the potential cumulative effects of the increasing numbers of wells are not treated as a “concern” to be analyzed in the EA. Instead, the extensive level of exiting oil and gas development is portrayed as the already established baseline to which a few more wells will be added. For example, Appendix L¹⁸ Issues Analyzed in Brief, Section 1.7.4 Visual Resources (p. 8) states, in part: “These nominated lease parcels… are adjacent to lands with a high degree of oil and gas development. Therefore, any future potential development of the parcels would be visually consistent with the surrounding landscape, which is already highly modified in character.” In other words, the BLM seems to be saying, in effect, that because there is already so much oil and gas development surrounding the park that adding a few more wells from this proposed lease sale will have no significant effects.

We realize that the impacts of any individual well may be relatively small; yet there are known impacts nonetheless. HOWEVER, the point that we have been trying to make and the concern that the BLM does not seem to acknowledge, understand, or analyze is that the cumulative impacts of dozens if not hundreds of wells in proximity to TRNP may collectively be significant, similar to the proverbial “death by a thousand cuts” idiom describing “a slow, gradual decline from many small harms.” There is ample evidence, such as the many concerns we have cited from the TRNP Foundation Document¹⁹, that the amount of oil and gas development occurring near TRNP is already causing obvious impacts. Allowing more drilling near the park inevitably and incrementally increases the cumulative effects of the “many small harms” that are already occurring under BLM-managed leasing. Because such cumulative effects are readily apparent but have yet to be analyzed or quantified by the BLM, we urge the BLM to include a legitimate cumulative effects analysis as a standard component in EA’s for any/all future proposed lease sales near TRNP. Lacking such an analysis, the BLM has no defensible basis for concluding that more drilling near the park is NOT causing harm.

In terms of quantifying the number of existing wells in the area, Appendix D ²⁰Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) provides the following information indicating the extensive level of oil and gas development already occurring near the North Unit of TRNP.

As of December 2024, 21,474 oil and gas related wells statewide in North Dakota were listed under production reports submitted to the NDIC Oil and Gas Division. (p. 4)
As of December 2024, Mckenzie County surrounding the North Unit of THRO had 3387 producing oil wells; 2212 producing gas wells; 707 shut/other wells; for a total of 6306 wells; which is more than any other county listed in the table or 29% of the total wells in the state. Of the 21 North Dakota lease parcels in the sale totaling 8,192.22 acres, 13 parcels are located in McKenzie County. (p. 5, Table 2). As noted in our scoping comments, of those 13 parcels, 12 parcels equaling approximately 6,400 acres are located LESS THAN 10 MILES from the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area boundary within TRNP-NU.

In addition to the above information, the Lease Sale Maps in Appendix C²¹ for the 12 parcels near the park show multiple already existing wells on the same maps. Further, the North Dakota Oil and Gas Division Map Viewer²² (an interactive GIS map) shows numerous existing well sites in Mckenzie County surrounding TRNP-NU. Collectively, this information, along with the ongoing quarterly lease sale proposals, indicates that an increasing number of oil and gas wells are being drilled or will be drilled on the lands surrounding the park; however, such information falls far short of quantifying the actual number of existing wells within a few miles of TRNP.

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 new drilling on the proposed parcels would add to the degradation of wilderness character and other impacts from existing development as noted above. We believe the BLM should disclose in the final EA the actual number(s) of existing wells surrounding TRNP, as it would it would be extremely illuminating in terms of the current volume and severity of the concern about cumulative impacts.

A basic starting point for a meaningful cumulative effects analysis would be for the BLM to disclose in the final EA how many existing wells total are located within 3, 5, and 10 miles of the national park boundary. First, we suggest that the BLM report on number of wells within 3 miles of the park because the BLM has evidently been making recent deferral decisions based, in part, on a 3-mile buffer distance around the park. As described in Appendix K²³ of the MTDKs Q1 Lease Sale EA (p. 96): “The parcels temporarily deferred in the 2025 lease sales were all located within three miles of TRNP-NU/TRWA, where proximity raised specific resource concerns. This three-mile buffer, through past input from the NPS during the NDFO July 2024 FEIS development, has been used as a practical threshold for applying enhanced stipulations or considering deferral when warranted by resource conflicts.”

While we understand that the 3-mile buffer concept originated from NPS comments on the 2024 DEIS for the NDFO RMP, we question the adequacy of a 3-mile buffer and ask the BLM to explain its rationale for adopting a 3-mile buffer, rather than something else, such as a 5-mile buffer or a 10- mile buffer. We are not aware of any studies conducted by the BLM or Argonne National Laboratory regarding the size of buffers (or set-back distances) needed to avoid impacts, including visual impacts, from oil and gas drilling operations on nearby special resource areas such as national parks. Available BLM guidance, such as the BLM Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development²⁴ (AKA The Gold Book) focuses on reducing or mitigating visual impacts from fluid mineral development, rather than actually avoiding such impacts. However, when it comes to protecting wilderness character and other important resources and values at TRNP, we contend that an avoidance strategy would be far more effective than mere mitigation in terms of limiting the cumulative effects of the ever increasing numbers of oil and gas drilling operations surrounding the park.

As stated above, we are not aware of any studies conducted by the BLM or Argonne National Laboratory regarding the size of buffers (or set-back distances) to minimize or avoid impacts of drilling operations on adjacent special protected areas. In contrast, a 2016 Strategic Environmental Assessment for Shale Gas Development²⁵ prepared by the government of the Republic of South Africa evaluated appropriate buffers between drilling operations and national parks having “[h]igh wilderness and scenic value, including dark skies at night’[and] Sensitive tourist receptors,” which, as an aside, is an apt description for TRNP. The Visual, Aesthetic and Scenic Resources portion of the study (Chapter 14²⁶, Table 14.6) found that drilling operations should be precluded within 5 km (3.1 mi) and generally limited within 7.5 km (4.67 mi) of a national park boundary. In other words, based on this study a buffer of at least 3 miles and preferably a buffer of nearly 5 miles, depending on the circumstances, from a national park boundary is considered appropriate.

We recognize that the BLM is under no obligation to follow another agency’s or country’s guidance on protecting national park visual and scenic resources from the impacts of oil and gas drilling. We cite the above study simply to reinforce the point that the BLM has NOT conducted any such study to determine the adequacy of the nominal 3-mile buffer used by MTDKs to base its deferral decisions in 2025. As a result, the adequacy of a 3-mile buffer appears to be subjective, if not arbitrary and capricious; and we strongly suggest that a 5-mile buffer would be considerably more effective at avoiding, not just reducing, adverse impacts to the park.

As a baseline for a basic cumulative effects analysis, we urge the BLM to document and disclose how many wells currently exist in proximity to TRNP. For this reason, in addition to documenting how many wells there already are within the 3-mile buffer, we also request that the final EA identify how many wells currently exist within 5 miles of the park boundary. And, lastly, we ask that the final EA also identify how many wells currently exist within 10 miles of the TRNP boundary as a general indicator of the total number of wells in proximity to the park. We believe this information is likely to be readily retrievable from agency GIS databases and is therefore a reasonable request of information to include in the final EA.

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

The Draft EA considers three alternatives: Alternative A – No Action; Alternative B – Proposed Action (i.e., full leasing); and Alternative C, which would defer on leasing 2 parcels in Greater Sage Grouse Habitat in Harding County, SD. However, the EA does NOT consider deferring any parcels in close proximity to TRNP, including 3 parcels that are located within the 3-mile buffer that the BLM indicates it uses as a “practical threshold” for considering deferral decisions. For years, the BLM has included such a modified leasing, or deferral, alternative in its lease sale NEPA analyses. It should 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. 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 some if not all of the parcels in close proximity to the TRNP 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 system.”²⁷ (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.²⁸” 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.²⁹”” (Emphasis added)

3. 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 the three parcels located less than three miles from the park 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 decision³⁰ 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). 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).

As described in Appendix K³¹ of the MTDKs Q1 Lease Sale EA (p. 96), “[t]he parcels temporarily deferred in the 2025 lease sales were all located within three miles of TRNP-NU/TRWA, where proximity raised specific resource concerns. This three-mile buffer, through past input from the NPS during the NDFO July 2024 FEIS development, has been used as a practical threshold for applying enhanced stipulations or considering deferral when warranted by resource conflicts.³²”

In the current proposed lease sale, parcels ND-2026-04-0768, -0766, and -6878 are located less than 3 miles from the TRWA boundary. Given the similarities in circumstances between the March 2018 Lease Sale, the Q3 September 2025 Lease Sale, the Q4 October 2025 Lease Sale – which resulted in deferrals of parcels within 3 miles of the park boundary – and the current Proposed Action, one would reasonably expect the BLM to at least consider deferring the above 3 parcels in the 2026 Q2 (April) lease sale. If the BLM were to allow oil and gas development in such close proximity to the park this time, the stark contrast in the outcomes between that and the previous deferral decisions and the 2026 Q2 sale would seem to be arbitrary and capricious.

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

As stated in the Section 3.1 of 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. At that time, detailed information about proposed wells and facilities would be provided for specific leases” (Emphasis added)

We realize that the BLM routinely defers site-specific impact analysis until the permitting stage, however, 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 §3171.13³³ 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 should defer parcels ND-2026-04-0768, ND-2026-04-0766, and ND-2026-04-6878, which are located less than 3 miles from the national park boundary.

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 the cumulative impacts of the proposed drilling on wilderness character and other resources and values in the TRWA within TRNP-NU, as well as its failure to consider an alternative to defer leasing the three parcels located less than 3 miles from the Wilderness Area boundary. In contrast, under similar circumstances in 2018 and twice again in 2025 (involving proposed leasing of parcels less than 3 miles from 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.³⁴” Similar to the deferrals of the North Dakota March 2018 Lease Sale³⁵ and the Montana-Dakotas Q3 September 2025 and Q4 October 2025 lease sales, the BLM should now defer on leasing parcels ND-2026-04-0768 and ND-2026-04-0766, and ND-2026-04-6878 in the 2026 Q2 (April) lease sale.

VII. Closing Comment

In our comments above, we have described a variety of concerns about the BLM’s proposed leasing of up to 12 parcels located in close proximity to the TRNP boundary, including three parcels less than 3 miles from the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Area. 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 a cumulative effects analysis of potential impacts to wilderness character and other park resources and values 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 April 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 on 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:
Rachel Daniels, Superintendent, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, National Park Service
William 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://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2040547/200664973/20147739/251047719/Appendix%20J%20Q2%202026%20Leasing%20Preference%20Evaluation.pdf
3
https://protectnps.org/2025/11/04/protecting-theodore-roosevelt-national-park-coalition-calls-on-blm-to-halt-new-oil-and-gas-leases-near-park-boundary/
4
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p.9.
5
Id at p. 14.
6
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf at p. 27.
7
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68341/101098/123134/finalappendixc.pdf
8
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.”).
9
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.”).
10
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).
11
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2040547/200664973/20147739/251047719/Appendix%20J%20Q2%202026%20Leasing%20Preference%20Evaluation.pdf
12
DOI Decision Document, dated August 5, 2025, which is attached to these comments. See Section II.A. for the wording cited.
13
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.
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
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2040547/200664973/20147744/251047724/Appendix%20L%20Q2%202026%20Issues%20Analyzed%20in%20Brief.pdf
19
https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/management/upload/Theodore-Roosevelt-National-Park-Foundation-Document-2014.pdf
20
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2040547/200664973/20147691/251047671/Appendix%20D%20Q2%202026%20Reasonably%20Forseeable%20Development%20Scenario.pdf
21
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2040547/200664973/20147693/251047673/Appendix%20C%20Q2%202026%20Lease%20Sale%20Maps.pdf
22
https://gis.dmr.nd.gov/dmrpublicportal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a2b071015113437aa8d5a842e32bb49f
23
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20146226/251046206/Appendix%20K%20January%202026%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
24
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and-production/the-gold-book
25
https://seasgd.csir.co.za/
26
https://seasgd.csir.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Ch-14_Visual_28Nov2016.pdf
27
NPS 2006 Management Policies, Section 1.4.2, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf
28
Id. at Section 1.4.3.
29
See DOI Solicitor Opinion # M-36993,# which is commonly referred to as “the Doe Run opinion.”
30
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87486/127800/155500/Withdrawn.pdf
31
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20146226/251046206/Appendix%20K%20January%202026%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf
32
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2039217/200656343/20146226/251046206/Appendix%20K%20January%202026%20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf See p. 96.
33
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-3170/subpart-3171/section-3171.12
34
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87486/127800/155500/Withdrawn.pdf
35
Id.