Stop weakened drilling rules across the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Production Site Development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Bureau of Land Management· National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, NPR-ABLM NEPA Register DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS ↗
BLM ePlanningWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Alaska
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Alaska Wilderness League
Works Alaska: built around defending the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas drilling.
- Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges
Works Alaska: lead plaintiff in the November 2025 federal suit challenging the land exchange signed to put a road through the Izembek Wilderness.
- Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Works Alaska: southeast Alaska’s homegrown defender of the Tongass since 1970.
- The Wilderness Society
Works Alaska: has litigated the 211-mile Ambler industrial road since the original 2020 approvals.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
BLM would rewrite its rules to speed up oil drilling approvals in one of America's largest wild landscapes.
What’s at risk
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, one of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the U.S., faces expanded industrial oil development. The rule change is driven by an industry petition seeking faster, easier permits with less environmental review.
If this goes through
If finalized, the new rules would permanently lower the regulatory bar for approving oil production sites and associated infrastructure across the NPR-A, making future rollbacks harder to reverse.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s case, tested
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 3
- No support given yet
The BLM is preparing an environmental impact statement on building and operating qualifying oil and gas production sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. That analysis is meant to support a rule that streamlines permitting for future production sites and rights-of-way, which the BLM says responds to an industry petition.
“The analysis in the EIS will inform and support a rulemaking that the BLM is undertaking to provide a streamlined approach to permitting procedures for the future oil and gas production sites and associated rights-of-way in the NPR-A.”
Project Description
Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.
Purpose and need
No support given yet
A streamlined permitting program for production sites and rights-of-way in the reserve is needed, as requested in the Alaska Oil and Gas Association's petition.
The notice ties the effort to a May 12, 2026, petition and describes the goal as a streamlined approach. It doesn't say what's wrong with current permitting, how long it takes, or what problem streamlining would fix. The only stated reason is that a trade association asked for it.
AskExplain what specific problems with current permitting in the reserve justify a new streamlined program, with data on permit timelines, and why existing procedures can't address them.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“This effort is in response to a May 12, 2026, petition for rulemaking from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.”
Project Description
Process
No support given yet
Commenting on only draft Chapters 1 and 2 alongside the proposed rule gives the public a meaningful chance to shape the environmental review.
The notice shows several chances for public input: a 45-day scoping period that ended July 6, 2026, and a 60-day comment period on draft Chapters 1 and 2 and the proposed rule. It also lists three in-person meetings with Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 810 hearings and three virtual meetings. It asks for comments on alternatives, scope and environmental concerns the BLM should consider 'as it completes the environmental review process.' But the notice doesn't show any effects analysis released for review before the rule was proposed. It lists the final environmental impact statement and the record of decision for the same date, 2/15/2027, and doesn't mention public review of the effects chapters.
AskRelease the full draft environmental impact statement, including the effects analysis, for public comment before finalizing the rule, and separate the final statement from the record of decision.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Comments on the EIS Chapters 1 and 2 should address the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns the BLM should consider as it completes the environmental review process.”
What's New
Elsewhere in the same document
“9/4/2026: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released draft Chapters 1 & 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 60-day public comment period and published the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register .”
What's New
Process
No support given yet
Offering government-to-government consultation on request, plus public meetings and subsistence hearings, is adequate engagement with affected tribes and communities.
The notice lists in-person meetings and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 810 hearings in Utqiaġvik, Atqasuk and Nuiqsut, plus three virtual meetings. On consultation, it only says the BLM welcomes requests. It doesn't say which tribes the BLM has contacted, whether consultation has started, or how tribal input will shape the rule.
AskIdentify the tribes and Alaska Native corporations the BLM has invited to consult, describe consultation completed so far, and explain how their input will shape the rule and analysis.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“As always, the BLM welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time.”
What's New
Read from the agency’s own notice ↗, the notice that opens this window; the full analysis comes later, so what it leaves unsupported is what to ask it to show. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
What to say
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The project description states that the EIS is being prepared to 'inform and support a rulemaking' that BLM is already undertaking in response to a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). NEPA requires that environmental review occur before a decision is made, not to support a decision already in motion. The notice reveals that the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register simultaneously with draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2, on the same date (September 4, 2026), with the same comment deadline (November 9, 2026). This sequencing suggests the agency has already committed to the regulatory outcome the EIS is supposed to inform. The agency should explain in the final EIS how it will remain open to alternatives -- including no rulemaking -- given that the proposed rule is already published and proceeding on a parallel track.
- The notice reveals that the rulemaking petition was filed by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) on May 12, 2026, and BLM initiated scoping just seven days later on May 19, 2026 -- an extraordinarily compressed timeline suggesting the agency's process was pre-coordinated with the industry petitioner. No mention is made of any independent agency analysis that preceded or justified accepting the petition before launching NEPA review. The agency should disclose what internal review, if any, occurred between receipt of the AOGA petition and the decision to initiate this EIS, and whether tribal governments and the public were consulted before scoping was launched.
- The notice states that BLM released only draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS for the 60-day public comment period, explicitly limiting comments to 'alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns.' The environmental analysis chapters -- which would contain actual impact data, baseline conditions, and cumulative effects -- have not been released. Asking the public to comment meaningfully on scope and alternatives without any supporting environmental data denies the public a fair opportunity to engage. The agency should either release the full draft EIS for concurrent review or extend the comment period once the environmental analysis chapters are published.
- The notice states that the EIS will consider 'the construction and operation of qualifying production sites' in the NPR-A, but does not define what makes a site 'qualifying.' No acreage thresholds, infrastructure footprint limits, species sensitivity criteria, or proximity-to-subsistence-use standards are identified. Without a definition of the term, the public cannot evaluate what activities fall within or outside the streamlined permitting program being proposed. The agency should publish and seek comment on the specific criteria that define a 'qualifying production site' before or concurrent with the draft EIS chapters.
Show all 8 points from the document
- The notice states that 'BLM welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' but frames tribal consultation as reactive -- tribes must request it rather than BLM proactively initiating it. For an EIS covering the NPR-A, a region with extensive subsistence use and Indigenous cultural resources, federal trust responsibilities and ANILCA Section 810 require more than a standing offer to consult. The notice does schedule Section 810 hearings, but does not indicate that government-to-government consultation with affected tribal governments has been initiated by BLM. The agency should disclose which tribes have been contacted for government-to-government consultation, when, and what responses were received.
- The notice states that comments on the EIS and comments on the Proposed Rule 'will be collected separately,' with different submission pathways, yet both share the same November 9, 2026 deadline. The proposed rule directly shapes what the EIS must analyze -- the scope of the streamlined permitting program defines the range of impacts to be studied. Separating the comment processes while running them simultaneously prevents commenters from cross-referencing the regulatory language when commenting on environmental scope. The agency should explain how it will integrate comments submitted on the proposed rule into the EIS analysis, or consolidate the comment processes.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of the construction and operation of qualifying production sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). The analysis in the EIS will inform and support a rulemaking that the BLM is undertaking to provide a streamlined approach to permitting procedures for the future oil and gas production sites and associated rights-of-way in the NPR-A. This effort is in response to a May 12, 2026, petition for rulemaking from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. That petition requests the BLM amend its regula…
Did the agency answer?
6 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe notice reveals that the rulemaking petition was filed by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) on May 12, 2026, and BLM initiated scoping just seven days later on May 19, 2026 -- an extraordin
The notice reveals that the rulemaking petition was filed by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) on May 12, 2026, and BLM initiated scoping just seven days later on May 19, 2026 -- an extraordinarily compressed timeline suggesting the agency's process was pre-coordinated with the industry petitioner. No mention is made of any independent agency analysis that preceded or justified accepting the petition before launching NEPA review. The agency should disclose what internal review, if any, occurred between receipt of the AOGA petition and the decision to initiate this EIS, and whether tribal governments and the public were consulted before scoping was launched.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that comments on the EIS and comments on the Proposed Rule 'will be collected separately,' with different submission pathways, yet both share the same November 9, 2026 deadline.
The notice states that comments on the EIS and comments on the Proposed Rule 'will be collected separately,' with different submission pathways, yet both share the same November 9, 2026 deadline. The proposed rule directly shapes what the EIS must analyze -- the scope of the streamlined permitting program defines the range of impacts to be studied. Separating the comment processes while running them simultaneously prevents commenters from cross-referencing the regulatory language when commenting on environmental scope. The agency should explain how it will integrate comments submitted on the proposed rule into the EIS analysis, or consolidate the comment processes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that 'BLM welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' but frames tribal consultation as reactive -- tribes must request it rather than BLM proactively i
The notice states that 'BLM welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' but frames tribal consultation as reactive -- tribes must request it rather than BLM proactively initiating it. For an EIS covering the NPR-A, a region with extensive subsistence use and Indigenous cultural resources, federal trust responsibilities and ANILCA Section 810 require more than a standing offer to consult. The notice does schedule Section 810 hearings, but does not indicate that government-to-government consultation with affected tribal governments has been initiated by BLM. The agency should disclose which tribes have been contacted for government-to-government consultation, when, and what responses were received.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that the EIS will consider 'the construction and operation of qualifying production sites' in the NPR-A, but does not define what makes a site 'qualifying.' No acreage thresholds, in
The notice states that the EIS will consider 'the construction and operation of qualifying production sites' in the NPR-A, but does not define what makes a site 'qualifying.' No acreage thresholds, infrastructure footprint limits, species sensitivity criteria, or proximity-to-subsistence-use standards are identified. Without a definition of the term, the public cannot evaluate what activities fall within or outside the streamlined permitting program being proposed. The agency should publish and seek comment on the specific criteria that define a 'qualifying production site' before or concurrent with the draft EIS chapters.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe project description states that the EIS is being prepared to 'inform and support a rulemaking' that BLM is already undertaking in response to a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AO
The project description states that the EIS is being prepared to 'inform and support a rulemaking' that BLM is already undertaking in response to a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). NEPA requires that environmental review occur before a decision is made, not to support a decision already in motion. The notice reveals that the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register simultaneously with draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2, on the same date (September 4, 2026), with the same comment deadline (November 9, 2026). This sequencing suggests the agency has already committed to the regulatory outcome the EIS is supposed to inform. The agency should explain in the final EIS how it will remain open to alternatives -- including no rulemaking -- given that the proposed rule is already published and proceeding on a parallel track.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that BLM released only draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS for the 60-day public comment period, explicitly limiting comments to 'alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environ
The notice states that BLM released only draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS for the 60-day public comment period, explicitly limiting comments to 'alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns.' The environmental analysis chapters -- which would contain actual impact data, baseline conditions, and cumulative effects -- have not been released. Asking the public to comment meaningfully on scope and alternatives without any supporting environmental data denies the public a fair opportunity to engage. The agency should either release the full draft EIS for concurrent review or extend the comment period once the environmental analysis chapters are published.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksIt’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .