Can our national parks, such as Theodore Roosevelt National Park, be protected from oil and gas development on their borders?/Kurt Repanshek

Editor's note: Mark Motsko, a former ranger at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, offers the following thoughts on Theodore Roosevelt's conservation ethics, national parks, and oil and gas development.

In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt stated, "Of all the questions which can come before this nation … there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."

More than a century later, on this iconic president’s birthday (October 27), this comment rings true, though shrouded in irony.

I fell in love with Theodore Roosevelt National Park during my time there as the North District Ranger between 1990 and 1995. It was a stunning place then, as wild and untamed as anywhere on the American frontier.

What impressed me about the North Dakota Badlands was the expansive skies, the pure air, and immense power of water on the landscape from the Little Missouri River shaping the land. The grasslands and juniper thickets offered perfect habitat for a multitude of animals including herds of bison, a vestige of times past when these large ungulates prevailed in the Great Plains.

My time at Theodore Roosevelt gave me incredible insights of what this natural resource looked like in times past. I also had the opportunity to experience of culture of people who were defined the meaning of word and deed. Hard-working, family-oriented, and responsible citizens who had a strong connection to this wild and wonderful place. North Dakotans are rightfully proud of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

However, a change is on the horizon. While I appreciate the financial benefits the oil and gas boom has brought to North Dakota, I am troubled by the extent that development has impacted the park to-date. Luckily, it’s still a spectacular national park that serves to protect the wildness of western North Dakota. It’s important we act to make sure the park remains protected for local communities and all Americans that travel to visit this special place. We should heavily weigh energy independence and the impacts on North Dakota’s only national park in the decision to offer this oil and gas lease. Removing this lease from consideration is the only true way to protect the unique natural resources.

The future of Theodore Roosevelt National Park is at a crossroads. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should reevaluate the impacts to the park, as the agency considers leases on the surrounding Little Missouri National Grasslands. The BLM is currently poised to offer an oil and gas lease in March 2018 directly on the boundary of the North Unit of the park. 

Effects of potential development should examined, especially as it pertains to the viewshed, air quality, and, worst-case scenario, of a spill that would flow into the national park in the Squaw Creek Drainage. 

This lease is part of a troubling and growing trend of allowing for oil and gas development on lands adjacent to national parks. This year alone, I have been alerted to BLM lease sales close to Zion National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, Rocky Mountain National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, Chaco Culture National Historical Site, Great Basin National Park, Fort Laramie National Historic Site, Hovenweep National Monument, and others.

Our national parks are not protected if they become islands in a sea of development – and that is exactly what the three units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park could become without thoughtful planning specific to how and where oil and gas development occurs near the park. Clear, dark night skies that I remember could be replaced by flares and lighting. Some of this development is visible from the park today, but it’s not too late to limit the impact.

In other parts of the country, the National Park Service and the BLM work together with local citizens, recreation and tourism businesses, and the oil and gas industry to make sure leasing decisions do not harm national parks. At times, industry and agencies have worked together around Theodore Roosevelt National Park, but there is significant room for improvement. Such collaborative efforts have allowed oil and gas leasing to move forward near Arches and Canyonlands national parks in Utah and Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado, for example. The goal of these efforts is not to stop development, but to find a balance between development and park protection. It can be done.   

As we move forward in protecting our national parks, we should look closely at the effects of development, especially oil and gas, to the risks to these special places. I am certain that there are many people in the local community that hold the same values of preserving Theodore Roosevelt National Park intact for future generations. Would they want one of the gems of North Dakota to be marred by oil and gas development or have the creeks impacted by a potential spill? Will their children get to experience the same park as they did? 

Let us consider these points in the decision-making process and seek a balance between our energy needs and the protection of one of North Dakota’s treasures.