Summary
On August 24, 2026, the Western Environmental Law Center and 18 conservation, public-lands, wildlife, and community organizations submitted comments opposing the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Rule, RIN 1004-AF05. The organizations contend that the proposal would weaken safeguards governing oil and gas development on federal lands, reduce public participation, expose taxpayers to greater financial liability, and conflict with several federal laws. They urge BLM to withdraw the proposed rule.
The principal objections are:
Inadequate bonding requirements. BLM proposes reducing the minimum individual lease bond from $150,000 to $10,000 and the statewide bond from $500,000 to $25,000—amounts comparable to requirements established more than 65 years ago. The commenters argue that these amounts would be far below the actual cost of plugging wells and reclaiming damaged land. They cite government and state estimates showing that reclamation can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per well. If an operator defaults or becomes insolvent, inadequate bonding could leave taxpayers responsible for cleanup. The organizations also dispute BLM’s claim that lower bonding requirements would significantly increase federal oil and gas production.
Reduced public participation. The proposed rule would eliminate the scoping and draft environmental-assessment comment periods currently associated with lease sales, shorten the notice period for competitive sales from 60 to 45 days, and reduce the protest period from 30 days to 10 days. It would also eliminate certain advance notifications to private surface owners. The commenters maintain that these changes would deprive communities, landowners, tribes, conservation groups, and other affected parties of meaningful opportunities to identify environmental and legal problems before leases are issued.
The filing also challenges a proposed fee of $1 per page for protests exceeding 50 pages. The organizations argue that the fee would penalize public participation, discourage the submission of supporting scientific and legal materials, burden access to administrative review and the courts, and potentially violate the First Amendment and Paperwork Reduction Act.
Reduced royalty rates. BLM has reduced the federal oil and gas royalty rate from 16.67 percent to 12.5 percent and proposes the same reduction for certain combined hydrocarbon and tar-sand leases. The commenters contend that BLM has not demonstrated that lower rates are needed to promote production. They argue that the reduction would diminish the public’s financial return from federal resources and conflict with BLM’s responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Elimination of leasing preference criteria. Current criteria help BLM prioritize parcels that have greater development potential and fewer conflicts with wildlife, cultural resources, recreation, and other public-land values. The proposed rule would eliminate those criteria. The commenters argue that doing so would encourage speculative leasing in areas with little prospect of development while making it harder for BLM to fulfill its multiple-use and sustained-yield responsibilities.
Return of noncompetitive leasing. The proposal would reinstate noncompetitive leasing for parcels that receive no bids at a competitive sale. The organizations contend that this system historically encouraged speculation, generated limited public revenue, and tied up federal lands that might otherwise be managed for conservation, recreation, wildlife, or other uses. If noncompetitive leasing is restored, they call for stronger safeguards, public notice, fair-market-value protections, and opportunities for public comment.
Lease suspensions and endangered species. The commenters argue that the proposed suspension provisions could allow companies to hold undeveloped leases for extended periods without demonstrating diligent development. They also contend that BLM has failed to complete the consultation required by the Endangered Species Act. Reliance on old, broad land-management-plan analyses, they argue, cannot replace current, parcel-specific evaluation before leases create legally enforceable development rights.
Overall, the filing concludes that the rule would weaken fiscal, environmental, and public-participation safeguards while providing insufficient evidence that the changes would benefit energy production or the public. The organizations ask BLM to withdraw the proposal or, at minimum, retain adequate bonding, meaningful public review, fair royalty rates, leasing preference criteria, and parcel-specific environmental protections.
Click here to read the full letter.