Stop oil and gas leasing on 4,053 acres in Eddy and Lea Counties
Q1 2027 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale - Carlsbad Field Office
Bureau of Land Management· Carlsbad Field Office administered lands, Farmington Field Office administered landsBLM NEPA Register DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2026-1439-EA ↗
Bureau of Land Management’s comment portal has been failing our nightly check since August 29.
Try the submission button anyway, it may work for you. If nothing goes through, and we will chase the agency for a working channel.
Bureau of Land Management lists these contacts for this project. They are not a substitute for the official channel, and a comment sent to them may not reach the record: Cody McCullah cmccullah@blm.gov (505) 954-2027; Nathan Combs ncombs@blm.gov (505) 954-2110
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 would hand private companies exclusive drilling rights on 4,053 federal acres in New Mexico's Permian Basin.
What’s at risk
More than 4,000 acres of federal public land in Eddy and Lea Counties face long-term oil and gas development that threatens local ecosystems, water resources, and wildlife habitat. The agency is proposing to lease 15 parcels across three field offices for at least 10 years, with leases continuing indefinitely as long as production continues.
If this goes through
Private companies would hold exclusive rights to explore and drill on these federal lands for at least 10 years and potentially far longer, locking the public out of any alternative use for the duration of production.
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
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The Project Description states that 'a permit to drill would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted,' but the notice offers no explanation of how leasing 4,053.590 acres now, granting exclusive development rights for 10 years or more, does not foreclose or constrain that later NEPA review. The agency defers all site-specific environmental analysis to a future permitting stage while simultaneously granting the lessee exclusive rights to use as much land as necessary. This is the classic NEPA timing problem: hard-look analysis must occur before the commitment is made, not after. The agency should explain in the EA how leasing does not irreversibly commit these acres to development and how later permit-stage NEPA remains a genuine check rather than a formality.
- The Project Description lists parcels administered by three separate field offices (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office) and directs the public to navigate to separate e-Planning pages for each office, but it provides no indication that a single cumulative or programmatic NEPA analysis covers all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres together. Segmenting one lease sale across three independent EA processes obscures the combined footprint and prevents meaningful cumulative-impact review. The agency should either prepare a single EA covering all 15 parcels jointly or explicitly demonstrate in each office-level EA how cumulative effects across all three offices were analyzed.
- The notice opens a public scoping period running from August 5 through September 4, 2026, a window of exactly 30 days. The notice provides no justification for limiting scoping to 30 days for a multi-office, multi-county lease sale spanning federal minerals in Eddy and Lea Counties in New Mexico plus parcels in at least two other field office jurisdictions. CEQ regulations and BLM policy recognize that affected tribes, local governments, and the public need adequate time to review parcel lists and technical materials. The agency should extend the scoping period to at least 45 days and explain why 30 days is sufficient given the geographic scope of this sale.
- The Project Description states that leases 'continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities' beyond the initial 10-year term, meaning the commitment of these federal minerals is effectively indefinite. Yet the notice's NEPA document is classified only as an EA, not an EIS. No rationale is offered for why an action granting perpetual exclusive development rights over more than 4,000 acres does not rise to the level of a significant action requiring an EIS. The agency should provide a finding of no significant impact with explicit reasoning, or elevate the analysis to an EIS.
Show all 12 points from the document
- The Project Description notes that '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)' would apply, but it does not identify which RMPs govern these parcels, when those RMPs were last amended, or whether any RMP-level analysis accounted for current conditions such as updated air quality data, species listings, or water-resource assessments in the Delaware Basin. Relying on unspecified, potentially outdated RMP stipulations without disclosing their content prevents the public from evaluating whether baseline protections are adequate. The agency should identify each governing RMP by name and date and confirm that its stipulations reflect current environmental conditions.
- The notice identifies 11 parcels in Carlsbad Field Office jurisdiction (9 in Eddy County, 2 in Lea County) but provides no information in the project description about proximity to existing producing wells, pipeline corridors, water sources, or sensitive habitats. The Permian Basin, including Eddy and Lea Counties, is one of the most intensively drilled regions in the United States, making cumulative impacts from additional leasing particularly acute. The agency should include in the EA a cumulative-impact analysis that accounts for existing oil and gas development density in Eddy and Lea Counties before issuing new leases.
- 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 oil and gas within the lease boundaries,' citing 43 CFR 3101.12, but the notice does not describe what surface-disturbance limits, reclamation bonds, or water-protection measures attach at the leasing stage rather than at the permitting stage. Members of the public cannot assess whether the lease itself contains any binding environmental protections or whether all protections are deferred to a later Conditions of Approval process. The agency should disclose in the EA which specific stipulations are attached to each parcel at the time of lease issuance and how those stipulations constrain surface use.
- The notice was last updated on August 7, 2026, and the scoping period opened August 5, 2026, yet no draft EA or supporting technical documents appear to be described as available for public review during scoping. The notice directs the public only to 'draft parcel lists' in the Documents section. Scoping on parcel lists alone, without access to any environmental analysis, baseline data, or alternatives description, does not give the public a meaningful opportunity to identify issues the EA should address. The agency should make available any existing baseline studies, parcel-specific resource reports, and a draft alternatives framework during the scoping period.
- The Project Description states that site-specific mitigation measures and best management practices 'would be attached as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for each proposed exploration and development activity authorized on a lease,' but it provides no indication of what those BMPs or COAs consist of or how their effectiveness has been evaluated for Eddy and Lea County conditions. Promising future mitigation without disclosing its content or demonstrated effectiveness is not a substitute for present NEPA analysis. The agency should identify in the EA the specific BMPs and COAs that would apply and cite evidence that they are effective under local soil, water, and habitat conditions.
- The notice lists the NEPA status as 'In Progress - Public Scoping Period' and classifies the project as an EA, but it does not identify any alternatives to the proposed action that are under consideration. NEPA requires that the agency evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no-action alternative, before deciding to lease. The public has no basis during scoping to comment on whether the agency considered leasing fewer parcels, applying additional no-surface-occupancy stipulations, or deferring parcels with resource conflicts. The agency should publish a description of the alternatives it is considering, including the no-action alternative, as part of the scoping materials so the public can provide informed input.
- 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 15 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 4,053.590 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 a…
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 Project Description notes that '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 Manage
The Project Description notes that '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)' would apply, but it does not identify which RMPs govern these parcels, when those RMPs were last amended, or whether any RMP-level analysis accounted for current conditions such as updated air quality data, species listings, or water-resource assessments in the Delaware Basin. Relying on unspecified, potentially outdated RMP stipulations without disclosing their content prevents the public from evaluating whether baseline protections are adequate. The agency should identify each governing RMP by name and date and confirm that its stipulations reflect current environmental conditions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states that 'a permit to drill would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted,' but the notice offers no explanation of how leasing 4,053.590 acres now,
The Project Description states that 'a permit to drill would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted,' but the notice offers no explanation of how leasing 4,053.590 acres now, granting exclusive development rights for 10 years or more, does not foreclose or constrain that later NEPA review. The agency defers all site-specific environmental analysis to a future permitting stage while simultaneously granting the lessee exclusive rights to use as much land as necessary. This is the classic NEPA timing problem: hard-look analysis must occur before the commitment is made, not after. The agency should explain in the EA how leasing does not irreversibly commit these acres to development and how later permit-stage NEPA remains a genuine check rather than a formality.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states that site-specific mitigation measures and best management practices 'would be attached as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for each proposed exploration and development ac
The Project Description states that site-specific mitigation measures and best management practices 'would be attached as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for each proposed exploration and development activity authorized on a lease,' but it provides no indication of what those BMPs or COAs consist of or how their effectiveness has been evaluated for Eddy and Lea County conditions. Promising future mitigation without disclosing its content or demonstrated effectiveness is not a substitute for present NEPA analysis. The agency should identify in the EA the specific BMPs and COAs that would apply and cite evidence that they are effective under local soil, water, and habitat conditions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice opens a public scoping period running from August 5 through September 4, 2026, a window of exactly 30 days.
The notice opens a public scoping period running from August 5 through September 4, 2026, a window of exactly 30 days. The notice provides no justification for limiting scoping to 30 days for a multi-office, multi-county lease sale spanning federal minerals in Eddy and Lea Counties in New Mexico plus parcels in at least two other field office jurisdictions. CEQ regulations and BLM policy recognize that affected tribes, local governments, and the public need adequate time to review parcel lists and technical materials. The agency should extend the scoping period to at least 45 days and explain why 30 days is sufficient given the geographic scope of this sale.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states that leases 'continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities' beyond the initial 10-year term, meaning the commitment of these federal min
The Project Description states that leases 'continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities' beyond the initial 10-year term, meaning the commitment of these federal minerals is effectively indefinite. Yet the notice's NEPA document is classified only as an EA, not an EIS. No rationale is offered for why an action granting perpetual exclusive development rights over more than 4,000 acres does not rise to the level of a significant action requiring an EIS. The agency should provide a finding of no significant impact with explicit reasoning, or elevate the analysis to an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice lists the NEPA status as 'In Progress - Public Scoping Period' and classifies the project as an EA, but it does not identify any alternatives to the proposed action that are under considera
The notice lists the NEPA status as 'In Progress - Public Scoping Period' and classifies the project as an EA, but it does not identify any alternatives to the proposed action that are under consideration. NEPA requires that the agency evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no-action alternative, before deciding to lease. The public has no basis during scoping to comment on whether the agency considered leasing fewer parcels, applying additional no-surface-occupancy stipulations, or deferring parcels with resource conflicts. The agency should publish a description of the alternatives it is considering, including the no-action alternative, as part of the scoping materials so the public can provide informed input.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice identifies 11 parcels in Carlsbad Field Office jurisdiction (9 in Eddy County, 2 in Lea County) but provides no information in the project description about proximity to existing producing
The notice identifies 11 parcels in Carlsbad Field Office jurisdiction (9 in Eddy County, 2 in Lea County) but provides no information in the project description about proximity to existing producing wells, pipeline corridors, water sources, or sensitive habitats. The Permian Basin, including Eddy and Lea Counties, is one of the most intensively drilled regions in the United States, making cumulative impacts from additional leasing particularly acute. The agency should include in the EA a cumulative-impact analysis that accounts for existing oil and gas development density in Eddy and Lea Counties before issuing new leases.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice was last updated on August 7, 2026, and the scoping period opened August 5, 2026, yet no draft EA or supporting technical documents appear to be described as available for public review dur
The notice was last updated on August 7, 2026, and the scoping period opened August 5, 2026, yet no draft EA or supporting technical documents appear to be described as available for public review during scoping. The notice directs the public only to 'draft parcel lists' in the Documents section. Scoping on parcel lists alone, without access to any environmental analysis, baseline data, or alternatives description, does not give the public a meaningful opportunity to identify issues the EA should address. The agency should make available any existing baseline studies, parcel-specific resource reports, and a draft alternatives framework during the scoping period.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description lists parcels administered by three separate field offices (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office) and directs the public to navigate to sep
The Project Description lists parcels administered by three separate field offices (Oklahoma Field Office, Farmington Field Office, and Carlsbad Field Office) and directs the public to navigate to separate e-Planning pages for each office, but it provides no indication that a single cumulative or programmatic NEPA analysis covers all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres together. Segmenting one lease sale across three independent EA processes obscures the combined footprint and prevents meaningful cumulative-impact review. The agency should either prepare a single EA covering all 15 parcels jointly or explicitly demonstrate in each office-level EA how cumulative effects across all three offices were analyzed.
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 oil and gas within the lease boundaries,' citing
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 oil and gas within the lease boundaries,' citing 43 CFR 3101.12, but the notice does not describe what surface-disturbance limits, reclamation bonds, or water-protection measures attach at the leasing stage rather than at the permitting stage. Members of the public cannot assess whether the lease itself contains any binding environmental protections or whether all protections are deferred to a later Conditions of Approval process. The agency should disclose in the EA which specific stipulations are attached to each parcel at the time of lease issuance and how those stipulations constrain surface use.
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? .