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 predicted likely to care in Alaska
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Alaska, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Alaska Wilderness League
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alaska: built around defending the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas drilling.
- Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alaska: lead plaintiff in the November 2025 federal suit challenging the land exchange signed to put a road through the Izembek Wilderness.
- Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alaska: first-named plaintiff in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump, the Ambler road suit filed in 2020.
- Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alaska: southeast Alaska’s homegrown defender of the Tongass since 1970.
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.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Scoping period for this programmatic Arctic EIS
- 45 days
- Comment period on Chapters 1 and 2 only, not full EIS
- 60 days
- Date industry petition triggered the EIS and rulemaking
- May 12, 2026
- Deadline to comment on both EIS chapters and proposed rule
- November 9, 2026
- Date proposed rule published before EIS was complete
- 9/4/2026
What's New
Open the document ↗“45-day scoping period, which ended at 10pm Alaska Time on July 6, 2026”
What's New
Open the document ↗“released draft Chapters 1 & 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 60-day public comment period”
Project Description
Open the document ↗“This effort is in response to a May 12, 2026, petition for rulemaking from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)”
What's New
Open the document ↗“How to Submit Comments on Chapters 1 & 2 of the EIS (Due by November 9, 2026)”
What's New
Open the 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”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.
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 the EIS analysis 'will inform and support a rulemaking that the BLM is undertaking,' yet the What's New section shows the Proposed Rule was already published in the Federal Register on 9/4/2026, the same day BLM released only Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS. The environmental impact analysis chapters have not been released. Publishing a proposed rule before the environmental review is complete inverts NEPA's requirement that analysis precede regulatory commitment and signals a predetermined outcome. BLM must withdraw or pause the Proposed Rule and commit to not finalizing it until the complete Draft EIS has been published and a full public comment period on the entire document has closed.
- The Project Description states no independent public-interest rationale for this EIS. The notice says the entire effort was initiated 'in response to' a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and that BLM will produce the specific regulatory program AOGA requested, amending the specific regulation AOGA identified. No agency finding is stated explaining why this scope, this regulation, or this program design serves the broader public interest independent of the petitioner's request. BLM must state an independent public-interest rationale for this EIS's scope and must ensure the range of alternatives is not limited to what the industry petitioner sought.
- The Project Description states the EIS covers 'qualifying production sites' but never defines what qualifies. Without that definition, the public cannot assess how many sites, what types of operations, what geographic areas, or what magnitude of development fall within the scope. The alternatives analysis and cumulative impact analysis are both unintelligible without it. BLM must define 'qualifying production sites' in the EIS, state what criteria determine qualification, and identify what categories of sites, if any, fall outside the streamlined program.
- The What's New section announces that BLM is accepting comments on both the EIS and the Proposed Rule but that 'comments will be collected separately.' No mechanism is described for how EIS comments on environmental effects will be incorporated into the rulemaking, or how rulemaking comments will affect the EIS's alternatives. Without a stated integration process, the two tracks can proceed independently and the EIS becomes advisory rather than decision-forcing. BLM must describe in writing how comments submitted to each track will be weighed in the other before either is finalized.
Show every point from the document
- The How to Submit Comments section asks the public to evaluate 'the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns' based only on Chapters 1 and 2, before the impact analysis chapters of the EIS have been released. Commenters are being asked to judge whether the alternatives are adequate without being able to see the environmental consequences of each alternative. This forecloses meaningful participation on the most consequential part of the NEPA process. BLM must release the complete Draft EIS before asking the public to evaluate the adequacy of the alternatives and scope.
- The What's New section schedules hearings under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 810 in Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut alongside the public meetings, but provides no description of what subsistence analysis has been completed, what subsistence uses are under evaluation, or what threshold finding BLM will apply. ANILCA Section 810 requires specific findings before authorizing actions that would significantly restrict subsistence. No preliminary findings or supporting analysis is offered for public review before the November 9 deadline. BLM must release its preliminary Section 810 subsistence analysis before the comment period closes so the affected communities can respond to it substantively.
- The What's New section states that BLM 'welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' placing the burden on tribal governments to request consultation rather than on BLM to initiate it proactively. The scoping period has already closed as of July 6, 2026, and the Proposed Rule is already in the Federal Register. Passive invitation language does not describe what consultation has occurred, what tribes were contacted, or what further steps are planned. BLM must describe what proactive government-to-government consultation it has already conducted with North Slope tribal governments and what consultation is planned before the EIS is finalized.
- 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…
On the record for this fight
2 people have filed on this fight through PLAN. The official record is still catching up.
- Milton M.39 seals
- and 1 more steward
Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards
Did the agency answer?
7 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 Project Description states the EIS analysis 'will inform and support a rulemaking that the BLM is undertaking,' yet the What's New section shows the Proposed Rule was already published in the Fede
The Project Description states the EIS analysis 'will inform and support a rulemaking that the BLM is undertaking,' yet the What's New section shows the Proposed Rule was already published in the Federal Register on 9/4/2026, the same day BLM released only Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS. The environmental impact analysis chapters have not been released. Publishing a proposed rule before the environmental review is complete inverts NEPA's requirement that analysis precede regulatory commitment and signals a predetermined outcome. BLM must withdraw or pause the Proposed Rule and commit to not finalizing it until the complete Draft EIS has been published and a full public comment period on the entire document has closed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states no independent public-interest rationale for this EIS.
The Project Description states no independent public-interest rationale for this EIS. The notice says the entire effort was initiated 'in response to' a petition from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and that BLM will produce the specific regulatory program AOGA requested, amending the specific regulation AOGA identified. No agency finding is stated explaining why this scope, this regulation, or this program design serves the broader public interest independent of the petitioner's request. BLM must state an independent public-interest rationale for this EIS's scope and must ensure the range of alternatives is not limited to what the industry petitioner sought.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe What's New section schedules hearings under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 810 in Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut alongside the public meetings, but provides no descri
The What's New section schedules hearings under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 810 in Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut alongside the public meetings, but provides no description of what subsistence analysis has been completed, what subsistence uses are under evaluation, or what threshold finding BLM will apply. ANILCA Section 810 requires specific findings before authorizing actions that would significantly restrict subsistence. No preliminary findings or supporting analysis is offered for public review before the November 9 deadline. BLM must release its preliminary Section 810 subsistence analysis before the comment period closes so the affected communities can respond to it substantively.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe What's New section announces that BLM is accepting comments on both the EIS and the Proposed Rule but that 'comments will be collected separately.' No mechanism is described for how EIS comments o
The What's New section announces that BLM is accepting comments on both the EIS and the Proposed Rule but that 'comments will be collected separately.' No mechanism is described for how EIS comments on environmental effects will be incorporated into the rulemaking, or how rulemaking comments will affect the EIS's alternatives. Without a stated integration process, the two tracks can proceed independently and the EIS becomes advisory rather than decision-forcing. BLM must describe in writing how comments submitted to each track will be weighed in the other before either is finalized.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe What's New section states that BLM 'welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' placing the burden on tribal governments to request consultation rather than on BLM to
The What's New section states that BLM 'welcomes requests for government-to-government consultation at any time,' placing the burden on tribal governments to request consultation rather than on BLM to initiate it proactively. The scoping period has already closed as of July 6, 2026, and the Proposed Rule is already in the Federal Register. Passive invitation language does not describe what consultation has occurred, what tribes were contacted, or what further steps are planned. BLM must describe what proactive government-to-government consultation it has already conducted with North Slope tribal governments and what consultation is planned before the EIS is finalized.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe How to Submit Comments section asks the public to evaluate 'the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns' based only on Chapters 1 and 2, before the impact analysis ch
The How to Submit Comments section asks the public to evaluate 'the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential environmental concerns' based only on Chapters 1 and 2, before the impact analysis chapters of the EIS have been released. Commenters are being asked to judge whether the alternatives are adequate without being able to see the environmental consequences of each alternative. This forecloses meaningful participation on the most consequential part of the NEPA process. BLM must release the complete Draft EIS before asking the public to evaluate the adequacy of the alternatives and scope.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states the EIS covers 'qualifying production sites' but never defines what qualifies.
The Project Description states the EIS covers 'qualifying production sites' but never defines what qualifies. Without that definition, the public cannot assess how many sites, what types of operations, what geographic areas, or what magnitude of development fall within the scope. The alternatives analysis and cumulative impact analysis are both unintelligible without it. BLM must define 'qualifying production sites' in the EIS, state what criteria determine qualification, and identify what categories of sites, if any, fall outside the streamlined program.
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? .