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· Eddy County, New Mexico (9 parcels), Lea County, New Mexico (2 parcels), BLM Carlsbad Field Office administered landsBLM NEPA Register DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2026-1439-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 predicted likely to care in New Mexico and Oklahoma
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in New Mexico and Oklahoma, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Greater Chaco Coalition
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works New Mexico: the coalition of Diné and Pueblo communities fighting drilling around Chaco.
- Intertribal Buffalo Council
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Oklahoma: on the ground in Oklahoma.
- New Mexico Wild
Predicted likely to care · a guess
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.
- Western National Parks Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Oklahoma: on the ground in Oklahoma.
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.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Total acres nominated for leasing across all three field offices
- 4,053.590 acres
- Total parcels in the Q1 2027 lease sale
- 15 parcels
- Lease term: initial period, then duration of production
- 10 years, then indefinite while oil or gas is produced
- CFO parcels by county
- 9 in Eddy County, 2 in Lea County
- Field offices conducting separate EAs within this single sale
- 3 field offices
Project Description
Open the document ↗“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”
Project Description
Open the document ↗“The Proposed Action is to lease 15 nominated parcels of federal minerals”
Project Description
Open the document ↗“Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities.”
Project Description
Open the document ↗“The parcels for the CFO include 9 in Eddy County and 2 in Lea County.”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The strongest findings read from the agency’s own document, each quoted word for word. Each one is a point a letter can put on the record.
What's New
The agency says
“To view and comment on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents specific to this Field Office”
The agency released a draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the same day it opened the public comment period on the draft EA.
Project Description
The agency says
“This is one of 3 offices involved in this lease sale.”
The sale covers parcels from three separate field offices, each conducting its own EA, with no single document analyzing cumulative impacts across all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres.
Project Description
The agency says
“the lease purchaser has the exclusive right to use as much of the leased lands as is necessary”
The moment a lease is sold the purchaser receives an exclusive right to develop the land, yet the notice also confirms that site-specific environmental analysis is deferred to the permit stage.
Project Description
The agency says
“A permit to drill would not be authorized until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted.”
The Project Description explicitly states that drilling analysis is deferred until the permit stage, yet by that point the lease is already issued and the federal government cannot easily refuse development without legal liability.
Project Description
The agency says
“Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities.”
The notice states that leases run for a 10-year initial term and then continue indefinitely as long as production occurs, yet the EA is structured as if it is evaluating a bounded, finite action.
9 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 agency released a draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the same day it opened the public comment period on the draft EA. A FONSI can only lawfully be signed after the agency has reviewed and considered public comments on the EA. The What's New section confirms both documents are simultaneously open for comment, which signals the conclusion of no significant impact was fixed before any public input was received. The agency should withdraw the draft FONSI, close the EA comment period, review all comments received, and only then decide whether the record supports a FONSI or requires preparation of an EIS.
- The sale covers parcels from three separate field offices, each conducting its own EA, with no single document analyzing cumulative impacts across all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres. The Project Description acknowledges this fragmentation without explaining why a unified analysis was not prepared. Splitting NEPA review by administrative jurisdiction rather than by geographic or ecological boundary means no reviewer can assess cumulative water, air, or wildlife impacts from the full sale. The agency should prepare one EA or EIS covering all three field offices' parcels together before any lease is sold.
- The moment a lease is sold the purchaser receives an exclusive right to develop the land, yet the notice also confirms that site-specific environmental analysis is deferred to the permit stage. These two facts create an unresolved tension: once exclusive rights are granted, BLM's practical ability to deny drilling is severely constrained, making the later permit-stage review largely non-discretionary. The Project Description never explains how the lease-stage EA can serve as an adequate basis for conveying those rights without first analyzing the reasonably foreseeable development scenario including drilling, production, and associated infrastructure. The agency should complete that analysis before issuing any lease.
- The Project Description explicitly states that drilling analysis is deferred until the permit stage, yet by that point the lease is already issued and the federal government cannot easily refuse development without legal liability. This admission creates a logical gap in the EA's hard-look obligation: the agency proposes to evaluate site-specific consequences only after exclusive, nearly irrevocable development rights have been conveyed. The agency should explain in the EA how deferring site-specific analysis is consistent with NEPA's requirement to assess environmental consequences before, not after, granting those rights.
Show every point from the document
- The notice states that leases run for a 10-year initial term and then continue indefinitely as long as production occurs, yet the EA is structured as if it is evaluating a bounded, finite action. An analysis that does not account for the potentially perpetual duration of these development rights cannot constitute a hard look at long-term impacts on water, air, wildlife, and nearby communities. The agency should explicitly analyze the full temporal scope of the leases, including the scenario in which production continues for decades beyond the initial term, before issuing a finding of no significant impact.
- The Project Description states that the CFO's parcels include 9 in Eddy County and 2 in Lea County, yet the Project Location section of this same notice lists only Eddy County. This internal inconsistency raises a direct question about whether Lea County was included in the scoping process, whether Lea County stakeholders and tribal interests received notice, and whether Lea County groundwater, wildlife corridors, and cultural sites were analyzed. The agency should correct the project location to include Lea County, confirm that Lea County communities and tribal governments were consulted, and demonstrate that Lea County resources were evaluated in the EA.
- The Project Description lists the BLM Oklahoma Field Office as a co-administering office for this New Mexico lease sale but provides no explanation for why an out-of-state field office administers federal mineral parcels in New Mexico or what additional legal, regulatory, or tribal consultation requirements may apply to those specific parcels. Without this explanation, the public cannot evaluate whether the correct Resource Management Plans or state-specific requirements were applied. The agency should identify which parcels fall under OFO jurisdiction, explain the legal basis for that jurisdiction, and demonstrate that all applicable RMP and consultation requirements were followed for those parcels.
- The notice describes all applicable protections as flowing from the field office RMPs and Surface Management Agency stipulations but makes no mention of tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or NEPA's requirement to consider cultural resources. New Mexico's Permian Basin region has significant cultural resources and tribal interests. The notice gives no basis for a reader to conclude that tribal consultation was conducted, that cultural resources were inventoried, or that the EA addresses these legal requirements. The agency should disclose in the EA which tribes were consulted, what cultural resources were identified on or near the parcels, and how those resources are protected under the proposed stipulations.
- The public comment period runs for 31 days for a sale that involves three field offices, 15 parcels in multiple counties, and rights that run indefinitely. Commenters must also navigate three separate e-Planning pages to understand the full scope of the sale, as the notice itself directs readers elsewhere for the other offices. A 31-day window is inadequate for the public to review the combined record of a multi-office, multi-county lease sale. The agency should extend the comment period to at least 45 days and ensure all affected parties have been notified before it 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 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?
9 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 explicitly states that drilling analysis is deferred until the permit stage, yet by that point the lease is already issued and the federal government cannot easily refuse devel
The Project Description explicitly states that drilling analysis is deferred until the permit stage, yet by that point the lease is already issued and the federal government cannot easily refuse development without legal liability. This admission creates a logical gap in the EA's hard-look obligation: the agency proposes to evaluate site-specific consequences only after exclusive, nearly irrevocable development rights have been conveyed. The agency should explain in the EA how deferring site-specific analysis is consistent with NEPA's requirement to assess environmental consequences before, not after, granting those rights.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states that leases run for a 10-year initial term and then continue indefinitely as long as production occurs, yet the EA is structured as if it is evaluating a bounded, finite action.
The notice states that leases run for a 10-year initial term and then continue indefinitely as long as production occurs, yet the EA is structured as if it is evaluating a bounded, finite action. An analysis that does not account for the potentially perpetual duration of these development rights cannot constitute a hard look at long-term impacts on water, air, wildlife, and nearby communities. The agency should explicitly analyze the full temporal scope of the leases, including the scenario in which production continues for decades beyond the initial term, before issuing a finding of no significant impact.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description states that the CFO's parcels include 9 in Eddy County and 2 in Lea County, yet the Project Location section of this same notice lists only Eddy County.
The Project Description states that the CFO's parcels include 9 in Eddy County and 2 in Lea County, yet the Project Location section of this same notice lists only Eddy County. This internal inconsistency raises a direct question about whether Lea County was included in the scoping process, whether Lea County stakeholders and tribal interests received notice, and whether Lea County groundwater, wildlife corridors, and cultural sites were analyzed. The agency should correct the project location to include Lea County, confirm that Lea County communities and tribal governments were consulted, and demonstrate that Lea County resources were evaluated in the EA.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe sale covers parcels from three separate field offices, each conducting its own EA, with no single document analyzing cumulative impacts across all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres.
The sale covers parcels from three separate field offices, each conducting its own EA, with no single document analyzing cumulative impacts across all 15 parcels and 4,053.590 acres. The Project Description acknowledges this fragmentation without explaining why a unified analysis was not prepared. Splitting NEPA review by administrative jurisdiction rather than by geographic or ecological boundary means no reviewer can assess cumulative water, air, or wildlife impacts from the full sale. The agency should prepare one EA or EIS covering all three field offices' parcels together before any lease is sold.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe agency released a draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the same day it opened the public comment period on the draft EA.
The agency released a draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the same day it opened the public comment period on the draft EA. A FONSI can only lawfully be signed after the agency has reviewed and considered public comments on the EA. The What's New section confirms both documents are simultaneously open for comment, which signals the conclusion of no significant impact was fixed before any public input was received. The agency should withdraw the draft FONSI, close the EA comment period, review all comments received, and only then decide whether the record supports a FONSI or requires preparation of an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe moment a lease is sold the purchaser receives an exclusive right to develop the land, yet the notice also confirms that site-specific environmental analysis is deferred to the permit stage.
The moment a lease is sold the purchaser receives an exclusive right to develop the land, yet the notice also confirms that site-specific environmental analysis is deferred to the permit stage. These two facts create an unresolved tension: once exclusive rights are granted, BLM's practical ability to deny drilling is severely constrained, making the later permit-stage review largely non-discretionary. The Project Description never explains how the lease-stage EA can serve as an adequate basis for conveying those rights without first analyzing the reasonably foreseeable development scenario including drilling, production, and associated infrastructure. The agency should complete that analysis before issuing any lease.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe Project Description lists the BLM Oklahoma Field Office as a co-administering office for this New Mexico lease sale but provides no explanation for why an out-of-state field office administers fed
The Project Description lists the BLM Oklahoma Field Office as a co-administering office for this New Mexico lease sale but provides no explanation for why an out-of-state field office administers federal mineral parcels in New Mexico or what additional legal, regulatory, or tribal consultation requirements may apply to those specific parcels. Without this explanation, the public cannot evaluate whether the correct Resource Management Plans or state-specific requirements were applied. The agency should identify which parcels fall under OFO jurisdiction, explain the legal basis for that jurisdiction, and demonstrate that all applicable RMP and consultation requirements were followed for those parcels.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice describes all applicable protections as flowing from the field office RMPs and Surface Management Agency stipulations but makes no mention of tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or N
The notice describes all applicable protections as flowing from the field office RMPs and Surface Management Agency stipulations but makes no mention of tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or NEPA's requirement to consider cultural resources. New Mexico's Permian Basin region has significant cultural resources and tribal interests. The notice gives no basis for a reader to conclude that tribal consultation was conducted, that cultural resources were inventoried, or that the EA addresses these legal requirements. The agency should disclose in the EA which tribes were consulted, what cultural resources were identified on or near the parcels, and how those resources are protected under the proposed stipulations.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe public comment period runs for 31 days for a sale that involves three field offices, 15 parcels in multiple counties, and rights that run indefinitely.
The public comment period runs for 31 days for a sale that involves three field offices, 15 parcels in multiple counties, and rights that run indefinitely. Commenters must also navigate three separate e-Planning pages to understand the full scope of the sale, as the notice itself directs readers elsewhere for the other offices. A 31-day window is inadequate for the public to review the combined record of a multi-office, multi-county lease sale. The agency should extend the comment period to at least 45 days and ensure all affected parties have been notified before it closes.
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? .