Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12734

I am writing to oppose the Bureau of Land Management's proposed rule (Docket ID BLM-2025-0037, RIN 1004-AF05) that would drastically reduce oil and gas bonding requirements and significantly shorten the public review period for proposed leases and land sales. I spend a great deal of time recreating on Bureau of Land Management lands. Hiking, camping, and exploring these landscapes has given me a firsthand appreciation for the importance of responsible stewardship of our shared public resources. These lands belong to all Americans, and they should not be managed in a way that shifts the financial risks of resource extraction from private companies onto the public. The proposal to reduce lease bond requirements from $125,000 per lease to $10,000 and statewide bonds from $500,000 to $25,000 is not supported by the actual costs of plugging wells and restoring disturbed sites. Available estimates indicate that plugging and reclaiming a single well commonly costs tens of thousands of dollars, with many wells costing substantially more depending on their depth, condition, and location. A $10,000 bond is plainly inadequate to ensure that reclamation obligations will be met. When bonds fail to cover cleanup costs, taxpayers are left paying for abandoned infrastructure and environmental damage after companies have profited from extracting public resources. This proposal also creates a moral hazard by reducing the financial incentive for operators to properly close and reclaim wells. Bonding requirements exist because history has demonstrated that companies sometimes become insolvent, transfer aging wells to less financially stable operators, or otherwise fail to complete reclamation. Weakening these safeguards increases the likelihood that orphaned wells will continue to accumulate, contributing to methane emissions, groundwater contamination risks, habitat degradation, and unnecessary public expense. In addition, I oppose the proposal to reduce the public review period for proposed public land sales and oil and gas leases from 90 days to only 10 days. Public lands belong to everyone, and meaningful public participation requires sufficient time for citizens, local communities, Tribal Nations, scientists, recreation groups, and conservation organizations to review complex proposals and provide informed comments. A ten-day review period is simply too short for meaningful public engagement and risks excluding many people who care deeply about how these lands are managed. The BLM should fully explain how dramatically reducing bonding requirements is consistent with its obligation to ensure that operators fulfill reclamation responsibilities and that the public is protected from financial liability. The proposal should also analyze whether the reduced bond amounts are sufficient in light of current reclamation costs and the existing backlog of inactive and orphaned wells. Without that analysis, it is difficult to conclude that the agency has adequately considered the consequences of this rule. A more reasonable alternative would be to maintain the current bonding requirements—or better yet, periodically adjust bond amounts to reflect actual reclamation costs and inflation. Likewise, the existing 90-day public review period should be retained to preserve meaningful public participation in decisions affecting America's public lands. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw this proposal and retain safeguards that protect taxpayers, ensure responsible reclamation, and preserve meaningful public involvement in the management of our public lands.