Stop oil and gas leasing on 13,000 acres in New Mexico
Q4 2026 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale - Carlsbad Field Office
Bureau of Land Management· Carlsbad Field Office (CFO) administered lands, Farmington Field Office (FFO) administered landsBLM NEPA Register DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2026-1065-EA ↗
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 work New Mexico
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Greater Chaco Coalition
Works New Mexico: the coalition of Diné and Pueblo communities fighting drilling around Chaco.
- New Mexico Wild
Works New Mexico: led the community campaign for the 2014 designation and executive director Mark Allison spoke at the June 2025 Las Cruces rally against monument reductions and the Senate public land sell-off provisions..
- San Juan Citizens Alliance
Works New Mexico: the San Juan Basin watchdog on the ground in greater Chaco.
- WildEarth Guardians
Works New Mexico: serial litigant over greater Chaco drilling permits.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
BLM plans to hand drilling rights on 13,453 acres of federal land to oil and gas companies.
What’s at risk
Over 13,000 acres of public land in Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico are at risk of industrial oil and gas development. Leasing these 53 parcels would lock in exclusive drilling rights for at least 10 years, and potentially far longer if production begins.
If this goes through
Once leased, companies gain exclusive rights to explore and drill across all 53 parcels, and those rights can extend indefinitely as long as oil or gas is produced.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
10 holes in the agency’s own analysis
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 that a FONSI was posted alongside the draft EA during the public comment period, meaning the agency circulated a Finding of No Significant Impact before the comment period closed. Issuing a draft FONSI concurrently with the draft EA signals the agency predetermined the outcome before public comments were received or analyzed. The agency should explain how it can receive and meaningfully respond to public comments when the no-significant-impact conclusion was already drafted and published at the same time as the document it is supposed to follow.
- The Project Description defers all site-specific environmental analysis to future permit-to-drill reviews, stating that a permit would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted. This means the EA covers 13,453.263 acres across 53 parcels without analyzing the actual on-the-ground impacts of drilling on any of those parcels. The agency should either conduct parcel-level analysis now or explain how leasing without that analysis does not constitute an irreversible commitment of resources under NEPA.
- The Project Description identifies three separate BLM field offices involved in this single lease sale (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office), each conducting its own separate EA, yet the notice provides no explanation of how cumulative impacts across all 53 parcels and all three offices are being analyzed together. Splitting one lease sale into three separate NEPA documents risks fragmenting the cumulative impact analysis. The agency should explain where the combined, cross-office cumulative impacts analysis for all 53 parcels appears, or consolidate the review.
- The notice states that once sold, the lease purchaser has the exclusive right to use as much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore and drill, yet the EA-level review being conducted now is the only broad public opportunity before that exclusive right attaches. The agency provides no analysis in this notice of what surface impacts that exclusive right could authorize. The agency should analyze the maximum reasonably foreseeable surface disturbance across the 14 CFO parcels before granting exclusive development rights.
Show all 12 points from the document
- The notice states that leases continue for as long as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities beyond the initial 10-year term, yet the EA is an EA rather than an EIS. The potentially perpetual duration of surface disturbance and resource commitment is not acknowledged anywhere in the notice as a reason for heightened analysis. The agency should justify why an EA rather than an EIS is sufficient given the open-ended duration of the commitment being made.
- The public comment period ran from July 17 to August 17, 2026, giving the public exactly 31 days to review a multi-parcel EA and draft FONSI covering 53 nominated parcels across three field offices. The notice provides no explanation of why 31 days is adequate for a multi-office sale of this scale or why an extended comment period was not offered. The agency should reopen the comment period for at least 45 days and provide a single consolidated document covering all three field offices to allow meaningful public review.
- The notice lists stipulations as coming from the relevant Resource Management Plans as amended and Surface Management Agency stipulations if applicable, but provides no information about which specific stipulations apply to any of the 14 CFO parcels in Eddy and Lea Counties. A member of the public cannot evaluate whether the stipulations are protective without knowing what they are. The agency should publish the specific stipulations attached to each of the 14 CFO parcels before the protest period closes.
- The notice identifies the project location county as only Eddy County, yet the Project Description states the CFO parcels include 10 in Eddy County and 4 in Lea County. The administrative record for location is therefore incomplete or inconsistent on its face. The agency should correct the project location to include Lea County so that affected residents and local governments in Lea County receive proper notice.
- The notice states that the parcels were nominated, but provides no information about who nominated them, what criteria were used to screen nominations, or whether any nominated parcels were removed for resource conflict reasons before the EA was prepared. Without that information the public cannot evaluate whether the parcel selection process itself was sound. The agency should disclose the nomination screening process and any parcels that were deferred or removed, and the reasons for those decisions.
- The notice provides no description of alternatives considered or eliminated from detailed study, which is a basic NEPA requirement even in an EA. The public is told only what the proposed action is, not what other approaches were evaluated. The agency should disclose what alternatives were considered, including a no-action alternative, and explain why each was retained or eliminated before the protest period closes.
- 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
The Proposed Action is to lease 53 nominated parcels of federal minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field Office (OFO), Farmington Field Office (FFO), and Carlsbad Field Office (CFO), covering 13,453.263 acres. Standard terms and conditions as well as lease stipulations listed in the relevant BLM OFO, FFO, and CFO Resource Management Plan(s) (as amended) and Surface Management Agency stipulations (if applicable) for Federal Oil and Gas Lease Offerings would apply. Once sold, the lease purchaser has the exclusive right to use as much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore…
Did the agency answer?
10 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 notice states that leases continue for as long as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities beyond the initial 10-year term, yet the EA is an EA rather than an EIS.
The notice states that leases continue for as long as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities beyond the initial 10-year term, yet the EA is an EA rather than an EIS. The potentially perpetual duration of surface disturbance and resource commitment is not acknowledged anywhere in the notice as a reason for heightened analysis. The agency should justify why an EA rather than an EIS is sufficient given the open-ended duration of the commitment being made.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description defers all site-specific environmental analysis to future permit-to-drill reviews, stating that a permit would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted.
The Project Description defers all site-specific environmental analysis to future permit-to-drill reviews, stating that a permit would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted. This means the EA covers 13,453.263 acres across 53 parcels without analyzing the actual on-the-ground impacts of drilling on any of those parcels. The agency should either conduct parcel-level analysis now or explain how leasing without that analysis does not constitute an irreversible commitment of resources under NEPA.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe public comment period ran from July 17 to August 17, 2026, giving the public exactly 31 days to review a multi-parcel EA and draft FONSI covering 53 nominated parcels across three field offices.
The public comment period ran from July 17 to August 17, 2026, giving the public exactly 31 days to review a multi-parcel EA and draft FONSI covering 53 nominated parcels across three field offices. The notice provides no explanation of why 31 days is adequate for a multi-office sale of this scale or why an extended comment period was not offered. The agency should reopen the comment period for at least 45 days and provide a single consolidated document covering all three field offices to allow meaningful public review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that the parcels were nominated, but provides no information about who nominated them, what criteria were used to screen nominations, or whether any nominated parcels were removed fo
The notice states that the parcels were nominated, but provides no information about who nominated them, what criteria were used to screen nominations, or whether any nominated parcels were removed for resource conflict reasons before the EA was prepared. Without that information the public cannot evaluate whether the parcel selection process itself was sound. The agency should disclose the nomination screening process and any parcels that were deferred or removed, and the reasons for those decisions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice identifies the project location county as only Eddy County, yet the Project Description states the CFO parcels include 10 in Eddy County and 4 in Lea County.
The notice identifies the project location county as only Eddy County, yet the Project Description states the CFO parcels include 10 in Eddy County and 4 in Lea County. The administrative record for location is therefore incomplete or inconsistent on its face. The agency should correct the project location to include Lea County so that affected residents and local governments in Lea County receive proper notice.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description identifies three separate BLM field offices involved in this single lease sale (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office), each conducting its
The Project Description identifies three separate BLM field offices involved in this single lease sale (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office), each conducting its own separate EA, yet the notice provides no explanation of how cumulative impacts across all 53 parcels and all three offices are being analyzed together. Splitting one lease sale into three separate NEPA documents risks fragmenting the cumulative impact analysis. The agency should explain where the combined, cross-office cumulative impacts analysis for all 53 parcels appears, or consolidate the review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice lists stipulations as coming from the relevant Resource Management Plans as amended and Surface Management Agency stipulations if applicable, but provides no information about which specifi
The notice lists stipulations as coming from the relevant Resource Management Plans as amended and Surface Management Agency stipulations if applicable, but provides no information about which specific stipulations apply to any of the 14 CFO parcels in Eddy and Lea Counties. A member of the public cannot evaluate whether the stipulations are protective without knowing what they are. The agency should publish the specific stipulations attached to each of the 14 CFO parcels before the protest period closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice provides no description of alternatives considered or eliminated from detailed study, which is a basic NEPA requirement even in an EA.
The notice provides no description of alternatives considered or eliminated from detailed study, which is a basic NEPA requirement even in an EA. The public is told only what the proposed action is, not what other approaches were evaluated. The agency should disclose what alternatives were considered, including a no-action alternative, and explain why each was retained or eliminated before the protest period closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that once sold, the lease purchaser has the exclusive right to use as much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore and drill, yet the EA-level review being conducted now is th
The notice states that once sold, the lease purchaser has the exclusive right to use as much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore and drill, yet the EA-level review being conducted now is the only broad public opportunity before that exclusive right attaches. The agency provides no analysis in this notice of what surface impacts that exclusive right could authorize. The agency should analyze the maximum reasonably foreseeable surface disturbance across the 14 CFO parcels before granting exclusive development rights.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states that a FONSI was posted alongside the draft EA during the public comment period, meaning the agency circulated a Finding of No Significant Impact before the comment peri
The Project Description states that a FONSI was posted alongside the draft EA during the public comment period, meaning the agency circulated a Finding of No Significant Impact before the comment period closed. Issuing a draft FONSI concurrently with the draft EA signals the agency predetermined the outcome before public comments were received or analyzed. The agency should explain how it can receive and meaningfully respond to public comments when the no-significant-impact conclusion was already drafted and published at the same time as the document it is supposed to follow.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAnother foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
It’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? .