Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12734
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed leasing revisions, arguing that they favor big oil and gas companies over the public interest. They request that the BLM maintain specific bonding requirements, public participation periods, and preference criteria to protect fish and wildlife and ensure taxpayer protection.
Public lands are for the benefit of the American people, not big oil and gas companies. These leasing revisions are an embarrassment.
Responsible energy development and fish and wildlife conservation need not be mutually exclusive. Smart, balanced management of diverse public land uses is needed. As the BLM considers revision to its oil and gas leasing regulations, I urge you to only move forward with a proposal that supports responsible energy development, including reducing impacts to fish and wildlife, protecting water resources, improving transparency, providing for robust public involvement and comment, and ensuring a fair return for taxpayers.
Specifically, I request that the final rule include the following elements:
Maintain bonding requirements established in the 2024 Leasing Rule that eliminated nationwide bonds and increased minimum statewide bonds to $500,000 and the minimum individual lease bond amount to $150,000. Doing so will ensure that taxpayers are not left with the cost to reclaim public lands and waters impacted by oil and gas development.
Provide ample opportunity for the public and state, local and Tribal governments to comment on oil and gas leasing proposals. Eliminating the two 30-day public participation periods would shut the public out of public land management decisions. In doing so, oil and gas leasing decisions will not be fully informed by new science and local knowledge.
Maintain oil and gas leasing preference criteria that steers leasing away from sensitive fish and wildlife habitats, including lands with little to no oil and gas potential.
Lease suspensions should be used sparingly, and oil and gas leaseholders should be held to a high standard to responsibly and diligently develop their leaseholds. Holding leases indefinitely does not serve the public interest and can restrict other land uses, such as fish and wildlife conservation, that may be incompatible with oil and gas development in sensitive habitat.
Thank you for the consideration of my comments. I hope that they help the agency to craft a final regulation that encourages responsible public lands energy development by ensuring the wise use of our natural resources and protecting taxpayers. Doing so will provide the agency with the tools it needs to properly manage our public lands for multiple uses that include fish and wildlife conservation and quality hunting and angling opportunity.